<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.6.6">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
I agree, care should be taken to ensure the autonomy, direction, ethos of the original developers/organizers is maintained. <BR>
<BR>
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." <<A HREF="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybAiTpqanDY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybAiTpqanDY</A>>. I would offer that all of the operational and governance David rightly advocates for can be managed within the right foundation.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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).<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Patrick<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Tue, 2016-02-23 at 13:29 -0700, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
My experience with all this is not at all positive I'm afraid.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
Whomever you assign it to then thinks they "own it" - and start down a slippery path to the dark side of control mania.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
Alternatively - all the original players leave there - and then the new folks ignore it - loose the domains - passwords et al.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
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.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<B>A great model for that is what LibreOffice is doing and see this posting from there:</B>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<B><A HREF="http://webmink.com/2016/02/19/joining-the-document-foundation-board">http://webmink.com/2016/02/19/joining-the-document-foundation-board</A>/</B><BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Please don't call it a Foundation though - as Simon Phipps notes!!!<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
David
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>