<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>Patrick,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You raise another great point about a typical project lifecycle and outcomes.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So everything has to be out in the open.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To answer Brent's question Github and Sourceforge models work and can be verified.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Simple is good.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>David</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=replyBlockquote style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: verdana; COLOR: black; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" webmail="1">
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: [CAVO] A host for an open source election system project<BR>From: Brent Turner <<a href="mailto:turnerbrentm@gmail.com">turnerbrentm@gmail.com</a>><BR>Date: Tue, February 23, 2016 4:41 pm<BR>To: Patrick Masson <<a href="mailto:masson@opensource.org">masson@opensource.org</a>>, CAVO <<a href="mailto:cavo@opensource.org">cavo@opensource.org</a>><BR>Cc: <a href="mailto:kcopenhaver@choate.com">kcopenhaver@choate.com</a>, Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>>, Tony<BR>Wasserman <<a href="mailto:tonyw@opensource.org">tonyw@opensource.org</a>>, Chris Jerdonek<BR><<a href="mailto:chris.jerdonek@sfgov.org">chris.jerdonek@sfgov.org</a>><BR><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr>Yes Patrick-
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>My reasoning for reaching out to yourself and Larry on this point is obvious-- who can we trust ? </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Best and thanks-</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>BT </DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Patrick Masson <SPAN dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:masson@opensource.org" target=_blank>masson@opensource.org</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><U></U>
<DIV>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" target=_blank>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 style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" type="cite">My experience with all this is not at all positive I'm afraid. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" 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 style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" 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 style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" 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 style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" 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 style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" type="cite"><BR><B>A great model for that is what LibreOffice is doing and see this posting from there:</B> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" type="cite"><B><A href="http://webmink.com/2016/02/19/joining-the-document-foundation-board" target=_blank>http://webmink.com/2016/02/19/joining-the-document-foundation-board</A>/</B><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" type="cite">Please don't call it a Foundation though - as Simon Phipps notes!!!<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" type="cite">David </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>CAVO mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:CAVO@opensource.org" target=_blank>CAVO@opensource.org</A><BR><A href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo" rel=noreferrer target=_blank>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>CAVO mailing list<BR><a href="mailto:CAVO@opensource.org">CAVO@opensource.org</a><BR><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo</a><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>