[CAVO] A host for an open source election system project

Tue Feb 23 21:56:18 UTC 2016

GIT for sure - but CAVO can host it so that we aren’t endorsing any company’s political views?

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:48 PM, David RR Webber (XML) <david at drrw.info> wrote:
> 
> Patrick,
>  
> You raise another great point about a typical project lifecycle and outcomes.
>  
> I have exactly seen that bunker process many times - and what gets thrown over the wall is a "product" that actually cannot be verified nor properly compiled.
>  
> So everything has to be out in the open.
>  
> To answer Brent's question Github and Sourceforge models work and can be verified.
>  
> Simple is good.
>  
> David
>  
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [CAVO] A host for an open source election system project
> From: Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com <mailto:turnerbrentm at gmail.com>>
> Date: Tue, February 23, 2016 4:41 pm
> To: Patrick Masson <masson at opensource.org <mailto:masson at opensource.org>>, CAVO <cavo at opensource.org <mailto:cavo at opensource.org>>
> Cc: kcopenhaver at choate.com <mailto:kcopenhaver at choate.com>, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com>>, Tony
> Wasserman <tonyw at opensource.org <mailto:tonyw at opensource.org>>, Chris Jerdonek
> <chris.jerdonek at sfgov.org <mailto:chris.jerdonek at sfgov.org>>
> 
> Yes Patrick-
> 
> My reasoning for reaching out to yourself and Larry on this point is obvious--  who can we trust ? 
> 
> In my recent conversations with the White House and Congressional members there is a bit of confusion as to best practices with regard to repositories as well as concern regarding service company availability.  I guess these are good problems to have as it shows forward movement. 
> 
> I have noticed that when new champions come along there is a tendency for group think to the extent the new found excitement might wish to replace the old guard pioneers.  I persist we must keep our vetted core team in the driver's seat as we can not afford to be derailed here.  
> 
> Best and thanks-
> 
> BT 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Patrick Masson <masson at opensource.org <mailto:masson at opensource.org>>wrote:
> I agree, care should be taken to ensure the autonomy, direction, ethos of the original developers/organizers is maintained. 
> 
> My suggestion would not be to relegate the project to some group, but rather find a place for--as we're quiting Simon Phipps--"a safe environment for the project to exist" or what he calls an "asset lock." <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybAiTpqanDY <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybAiTpqanDY>>. I would offer that all of the operational and governance David rightly advocates for can be managed within the right foundation.
> 
> As we ll know, there is a lot of work in developing both the code and community. Again, the right foundation can reduce the overhead of starting up and maintaining the project: key phrase, "right foundation" that does not threaten the project just as David fears/describes.
> 
> My fear is that S.F. City generates an RFP that includes a requirement that the final result be distributed with an open source license. Then all the development goes off behind the closed doors of the winning contractor where only a final product is pushed over the wall. This is both a governance and operational/development catastrophe. I'd also be worried that that contractor retains the copyright (or even the city) versus a foundation where authority/governance is representative rather than appointed or sponsored (pay to play).
> 
> All that said, David is spot on to raise these concerns as a foundation can very much take over, or put such a burden on the project that it constrains it.
> 
> And again, quoting Simon from the above OSCON keynote, "If you're going to start a new activity, I beg you to join an existing organization if you possibly can--an existing proven organization." That video also has some other good advise that might be worth considering as your project moves forward.
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2016-02-23 at 13:29 -0700, David RR Webber (XML) wrote: 
>> 
>> My experience with all this is not at all positive I'm afraid. 
>> 
>> Whomever you assign it to then thinks they "own it" - and start down a slippery path to the dark side of control mania. 
>> 
>> Alternatively - all the original players leave there - and then the new folks ignore it - loose the domains - passwords et al. 
>> 
>> My preference is for the Github / Sourceforge model - where there is a team of technical folks managing the source base - and have a vested interest in that.  Plus - you have people assigned tasks - and are submitting updates - and all changes are tracked.
>> 
>> If you want to have some way for organizations - such as States or Cities to be stewards - and request features - fund updates - then that is cool - building an engaged user commuity. 
>> 
>> A great model for that is what LibreOffice is doing and see this posting from there:
>> http://webmink.com/2016/02/19/joining-the-document-foundation-board <http://webmink.com/2016/02/19/joining-the-document-foundation-board>/
>> 
>> Please don't call it a Foundation though - as Simon Phipps notes!!!
>> 
>> David 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CAVO mailing list
> CAVO at opensource.org <mailto:CAVO at opensource.org>
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CAVO mailing list
> CAVO at opensource.org <mailto:CAVO at opensource.org>
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo>
> _______________________________________________
> CAVO mailing list
> CAVO at opensource.org <mailto:CAVO at opensource.org>
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo>
Thanks,

Brian
--
Brian J. Fox
Founder/CEO
Opus Logica, Inc.
A: 901 Olive St., 93101
O: 76-BAFFLE-76
C: 805.637.8642

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160223/749f9442/attachment.html>