Peter: thank you kenneth for the conference bridge, and also for the recording. As we have a small group, .... I can do the facilitating - lets do it as a Q&A session and see if we can get some agreement or closure on a few things. Lets do the same thing like last time, initially that everybody speaks the questions and concerns around the new governance, and then we can try to address those. Kenneth was already at the last meeting, let's start with Sven because you havn't been in the recent release meetings, and also not on the last conference call. [2:15] Sven: For me its a really simple question, it seems to me that there's not enough going on on Codev, and there seems to be lots of backchannel stuff happening right now, (Kenneth - there's echo...). So like.. my real concern is that while some people may find it really convenient to use the phone, there isn't very much going on to try to get feedback and responses from people that are not on the phone calls, and there doesn't seem to me to be very much effort being put into communicating what goes on and whats planned to happen. And that kind of why I've spent most of time answering things on Codev, rather than, well, i've been away so i couldn't actually be part of the last meeting anyway, (Andre can't hear :/) Things I've noticed, in the minutes of the last meeting, there's talk about emails going back and forth discussing the TCC group, which obviously nobody else has seen, so nobody knows whats really going on, so it seems to me like we're not really getting very far as to communicating to the rest of the community, which i can't really see how that's going to help improve their trust. Everything else thats going on, it feels like we've got an in clique of people who are talking to each other on the phone, having some confidence in each other, because they obviously are the 'in' group (and i'm including myself in that), whereas whats important i think is to go out and talk to the community. I can't think of anybody who was on the phone calls, who isn't actually part of the clique. Other than that, I've addressed all the other things i see as problems on Codev, I've noticed that there's been pretty much little to no response, which i think is another sign of the same issue. I think if there's going to be some kind of attempt to do anything to the community, that it should be done in the open, and an incredible amount of effort made to make sure that its not limited to such a small group as we've got today, or we had in the last meeting. And thats pretty much me. I think the stuff I posted over the week on Codev really are my response to the thing, I think we've got a proposal I don't see addressing any of the core issues, and worse, I don't think we've discussed the core issues to the point where we can then figure out what our end goals are, and what things are necessary to address those issues. So I don't really have any confidence that we're going to try, or even manage to realise what it is we need to do. [7:30] Peter: Sven, could you state maybe one or two or even three, if you want, issues as you see it, here on the phone, so that we can have a discussion later on to try to address those. Sven: I think because I'm not really particularly good at speaking I would suggest the HighlevelTWikiStrategy, that topic sums up to some degree where i think part of the problem is. As you said in the last meeting, there's a mismatch in expectations, I think over the last 10 years, we've, as a community, built an expectation that twiki is a community driven open source project. And the changes that we've seen since the introduction of twiki.net feel like thats trying to be reversed. and I don't personally think that's got any chance of working. What the consequences of trying to push something through like that, i don't know, but the more i read about companies that have attempted that, I havn't found one thats succeeded. And so to me, the TWikiGovernance proposal so far reads not in a way that tries to address that, for whatever reasons. I think its basically setting up to fail, even further than we have right now. [9:20] Peter: OK. anything else Sven? Sven: I think really, whatever happens, there's a number of things on Codev, I think much much more needs to be on Codev, The fact that Crawford, Lynnwood and I are the only ones that went through and transcribed the last meeting, doesn't look positive, because essentially, it kind of suggests that people don't want to talk to everybody about it. They just want to talk to their clique, and agree amongst themselves and leave it at that. I don't think that at this point, that the core twiki people are doing themselves any favours. I just see the way this is going as almost like the twiki summit, where again there wasn't a strong amount of communication and consensus building, it was really limited to the people that got together, delcared this is what we decided for everybody else, which if you look at open source projects, is the opposite of how an open source project works. its not so much a democracy thing, its a reality thing, in that open source thrives on what people are willing to contribute, not on what some people wnat to decide. [11:10] Sven: so my suggestion is simply: spend more time talking on Codev to work out these things. most of what I posted over the week, aren't complete thoughts, they're definitely issues that i preferred not to have spent any time on, but as its going, they obviously need addressing. An awful lot of people seem to have gotten really really upset about how things have worked out over the last period. [11:45] Peter: OK, thank you Sven, lets address that afterwards, I would like to hear first the questions and concerns, suggestions included, at the end. So who wants to go next? Andre, do you wanna go next? [12:15] Andre: OK, my opinion doesn't change from the last .... especially the mixing up of the roles of Peter, mixing up the roles of owner or manager in twiki net and managing also the twiki org project .... there has to be a decision where he wants to belong to either twiki net marketing and so on or BDFL or something on twiki org but i can't see a way where both interests are getting to a good .... Sven mentioned it should be more talked about ... on Codev and let other people participate and decide things and not only the core, but make? sure it's the main fault of these interests. i think this TCC is a good idea ... to initiate something which is more community driven and could be a foundation to build something. Maybe they decide, OK, we need some BDFL or whatever ... or maybe we don't need anyone at this point. Not every open source projects ... need such a person ... maybe it's possible to [look] back a few years ago when the community was active, there was no-one who had the permanent [role] of decision making, it was just the community that was getting quite healthy ... around 2004/2003, before switching years or something happened. I think becoming a better community is more relaxing without even having such a role defined. I don't see any need for this BDFL thing .... I like to hear someone step up and say "I want a BDFL ...". I [ haven't] heard anyone but Peter say this at this time. Peter: thank you .... (discussion about who's next and who's on the call skipped) [16:35] I said last time that I supported Peter's role as dictator for one reason, and that's [because] I always felt he was the one that would protect me against non-compatible changes. I think we discussed non-compatible changes ... at some point. That's one of the reasons that I support. Not because I think the leadership in this project needs one, but because I have often felt that people that themselves do not have a big community behind them may not have as much visibility to the need to protect content than people like me that have thousands and thousands of topics to protect. I am afraid [ I] am a lonely ranger in this because a big majority of the active community are people that have it.... as a business to develop TWiki, very few are people that are working in big companies like me. So that's why I have supported the role that peter has. If I had the feeling that [a big majority of] the community would protect the backward compatibility then ... I don't have a problem not having having one. That's where I have been afraid, not that people by accident [have broken] backward compatibility but they have raised proposals over the years since I joined have suggested changes that would break the backward compatibility. So that's really the only reason. I think the community is able to make most decisions, and if you look at the release process, I don't think anyone has even thought about ... making a core veto on any of these proposals, which I think is a good sign, it shows that the people that are willing to implement the good feature ... willing to spec it, and explain what they wan to do, can do it without anyone trying to stop them. I think that's a good healthy sign. Of course I'm a bit disappointed about how things have been in the last half year, the remark about the clique that have been emailing eachother, the fact that there are a number of cliques on the ... there is also a wikiring clique that have priavte chat channels that they help echorther. This is a fact of life but I think it's important that none of these cliques is misused [listed examples of cliques such as twiki net and wikiring]. That issues that need to be discussed are discussed on an individual basis and not in these cliques. So there I agree with Sven that we need to keep everything as open as possible. I want to say one thing about these phone calls which has been my proposal. I don;t thing that these [ phone calls] should in any way replace discussions on Codev or IRC. i just see them as yet another way of communicating. .... being able to hear eachothers voices.... is often ... eaiser to understand when they are [passionate]. But phones should not be the new way of communicating. I want the release meetings and so on should be in writing, but .... it's nice to be able to hear peoples' voices. [22:00] Peter: Thank you, Kenneth. Let me address the points of Sven and I'd like to invite othe folks to chime in instead of one stating the issue and one addressing the issues. On the private emails .... I agree that it would be more healthy to have open comms. Because of the low trust ... there is a lot of traffic going on, and ... that includes ... everybody. That's not an excuse to start to be more open. On my TODOI will create a mail list a twiki-tcc mailing list and .... should be open.... [23:30] Sven: if its an opt in mailing list, (then we're missing out most of the community.) This sort of stuff is so important to twiki that it needs to be done on Codev. its pretty much the most important thing of anything we can do. [23:40] Peter: there the point is that a group needs to be able to quickly communicate and while i agree that twiki is the best - Sven: Either you are working to build trust, in which case you have got to go and do it the hard way, or you take shortcuts by having private groups so that you can then reveal your answer, and people won't trust it. Peter: thats again going back to the trust question, there also a balance with the efficiencies, so if all the groups, would do only wiki way collaboration, or communicate on codev, i would also include all the wikiring traffic, no more irc chat, private chat etc. That might be possible, that would bring transparency to the community, but it will also be really innefficient. in order for a team, (Sven: if you're doing it to increase trust, efficiency is secondary to trust) Peter: Ok, I hear you, the way I think is, is that a group, in corporations, in open source communities, its very common to have mailing lists, and people communicate by email, as well as phone calls, as well as on the wiki. I think its very important to be transparant, i think its ok if a group, discusses things on email, or on conference calls, but document everything, and make it available for everyone to read. Thats basically what we're doing with these conference calls here. I consider this way more effective, than just communicating on codev. Its also important to when a group wants to introduce a change, like the while community wants to have a change in governance, its very important that there is enough time, allocated, so that people can provide feedback, and that feedback should be provided on conference calls, the wiki, in irc, so that then those folks who are working on a proposal can take as much as possible of those feedback to incorporate into the new governance. I believe we are on the right track, right now, with this. So on codev there has been alot of feedback, on the twiki governance, and the tcc will take that into consideration. [27:45] The second point, that you Sven stated that core issues are not addressed, and especially the HighLevelTWikiStrategy, in regards to expectations, I slightly disagree that you stated that it is not my goal to have a community driven project. To the contrary, for 10 years I've been working on this project, I've always done my best to try to create an environment where we have thriving open-source community. I have succeeded in some parts, I have failed in others, to achieve that. But my primary goal is to grow the entire ecosystem of the twiki project mainly to propel twiki to be the lead in its space. twiki has been the lead in it's space for the longest time but we have seen [in the last 2 years] that there are a number of runner- ups, they also have active communities and if we don't pull on the same string then we risk being left in the dark. ... and if we continue working against eachother ... the twiki project will inevitably lose against the competition. There are a number of ways to solve that. ... My sincerest goal is to bring the community together. The way I see it (and this is my personal belief, I have seen there are many people who do not agree) ... a strong company supporting the OSS community in an OSS friendly way is the best way to position the community in a way we can compete against all these other tools. I also believe if we go the route .... where we have many little competing commercial interests ... we will continue to fight internally within the community .... we will not be able to gel the community together and we won't be able to propel twiki to the next level. So having said that it doesn't mean that one company should dominate the community. I think it is vital that there is clearly stated governance, including clearly stated code of conduct guidelines, what the do's and dont's are within the community and the do's and dont's of commercial companies within the community. [31:35] Sven: I think one thing is, you haven't written down anywhere who is proposed to be on the TCC Peter: we on the last question, I should have stated at the beginning of this meeting. I have been talking with Kenneth and a number of other folks about who would be good candidates for the tcc. We came up with a list of 5, and all 5 believe that this is a .... that these 5 members are quite suitable to start the tcc. Initially it is an appointed function, and then depending.... Sven: has this been written down on Codev or anywhere yet, so that people can discuss it? Peter: it has not been written on Codev, I can do that today. [33:10] Sven: *garbled* (even Sven doesn't know) Peter: no, ... everyone knows who has been reading the minutes of the last meeting, or listening to the tape of the last meeting, [knows] who is proposed. The people who are proposed for the tcc are kenneth, arthur, martin seibert and michael daum. It is an odd number on purpose, the 5 members believe we are nicelty positioned to work with the community to decide the code of conduct and the other teams within the community. [34:22] At this meeting I would like to announce that (kenneth, arthur, martin seibert michael daum and myself) ... are the first TCC. Now the TCC is initially appointed. We could follow the total democratic way of electing .... from the very beginnning. Personally I cannot accept this, or I think it would not be possible at this point, because we have such a low trust, and I think that a group of dominant people in the community could basically be represented in the TCC to the disadvantage of the needs of other folks, including myself. i think we've a well-balanced initial tcc which includes me as the founder, arthur experience in usability, and kenneth who is the community lead I would say, martin who is new to the community and ... can bring in fresh blood but ... he has experience of business.... he built up a good business with his brother when he was very young, I believe before 20, he will bring business friends to community Sven: you are not representing non-commerical interests Peter: we are not representing non-commerical interests, that is correct, however I think it is paramount for the twiki project to get more professional. By professional i mean to be able to moe in line with the twiki msiss. The mission is consistenyl focusing on the commercial market.... It's not the idea that the open source community is commercialised, but the idea is to shape the community so that consultants and people who make a living, or have an interest in twiki, can ... do so effectively .... Then we also have in the tcc MD who is a consultant, who belongs to wikiring, so I think it is vital that one wikiring member is also in the tcc. Obviously the wikiring members also have their goals, and I think that it i important that those goals are also reflected within the community. So that's the TCC. Sven, your last point that you mentioned about the summit, things are decided and the community is not taken into account. [39:23]