[IAEP] Funding - and governance

[Greg Dekoenigsberg]

On Wed, 28 May 2008, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> On 28.05.2008, at 10:42, Seth Woodworth wrote:
>
>> I've been trying to wrap my brain around this idea for content-based
>> projects.  I've had a few people that I respect take the same stance
>> as Jim.  Mako wrote a pretty good article on the subject a few years
>> ago that I think has some bearing on the situation:
>> 
>> http://mako.cc/writing/funding_volunteers/funding_volunteers.html
>
> That article is spot-on. These paragraphs describe what many volunteers feel 
> with respect to OLPC - despite of many OLPC employees at 1cc trying to be as 
> open as possible, even using irc to chat if they sit in the same room etc:
> ============
>
> When the consortium was created, paid programmers were moved into a single 
> office. It was now quicker and more efficient to discuss a new feature or a 
> design decision at a whiteboard or blackboard or over the top of the cubicle. 
> Development became quicker and more efficient for people who worked in the 
> office and more difficult to track, follow, and participate in for anyone 
> working from remote or who had less time to devote.
>
> Part of being "more equal than others" was having easier access to 
> information and status and to the other people working on the project. While 
> the project was still "open" to contributions from its community, volunteers 
> had a more a difficult time following the project's development.
>
> =============
>
> We must avoid a similar situation with Sugar Labs. There are no plans to 
> stuff developers into one office, they are paid by different entities for 
> now, so there is no immediate danger. Btt the planning forward should take 
> this into account.

Mako draws some wrong conclusions, I think, in this draft.

It is not the paid-ness of full-time engineers that causes problems.  It 
is the tendency to form a cabal which causes problems.  This tendency can 
be mitigated, if you have the right people and processes in place.

Fedora is clear evidence -- to me, anyway -- that an engineering 
organization that contains both paid staff and unpaid volunteers can 
prosper -- so long as the paid staff is fully engaged in supporting the 
volunteer staff, and understands the potential pitfalls and how to avoid 
them.

Case in point: the migration of the Fedora project wiki from MoinMoin to 
Mediawiki -- a *HUGE* undertaking -- was handled primarily by a handful of 
people. Primarily Mike McGrath, former volunteer and now leader of the 
Fedora infrastructure team, a guy who takes community technical leadership 
*very* seriously -- but substantially by the community, including two high 
school kids who did a *tremendous* amount of heavy lifting.

--g