Andy Lester writes "Bill Odom has been appointed president of The Perl Foundation, and four new members have been elected to its Steering Committee, the Perl Foundation announced today."
Allison Randal, president since 2002, is stepping aside to take a
more active role in Perl 6 and Parrot development. "I endorse Bill
wholeheartedly," she said. "Bill is calm in a crisis, follows
through on what he starts, and inspires others to do great work.
I can't think of anyone better suited to lead TPF through our next
steps of growth."
Bill started working with TPF at OSCON in 2004 when he organized
the exhibit hall booth and took charge of the auction. Soon after,
he was elected to chair the Steering Committee.
There are also big changes in the Steering Committee that does the
day-to-day work of TPF. Four new members have been elected.
The Grants Commmittee will be led by Curtis "Ovid" Poe, who has already
distinguished himself as a grant manager for TPF. His experience and
dedication, most recently with the Google Summer of Code / Perl Foundation
grant recipients, has shown how valuable Curtis is to TPF.
Long-time TPF member Jim Brandt is stepping into the role of Conferences
Committee chair. He assembled and managed the incredible team that
hosted the very successful YAPC::NA in Buffalo in 2004, and has used
that experience to help others organize subsequent conferences.
New public relations coordinator Andy Lester, while new to TPF, is no
stranger to the Perl community. He's well-known as an outspoken, steadfast
advocate of Perl, and is definitely the right person to provide "Public
Relations the Perl way" -- honest, forthright, and useful information,
as the community rightly demands.
Kirsten Jones may be a new name to many, but brings a wealth of experience
to her role as the webmaster of perlfoundation.org. A self-described
"serial volunteer," she's lent her considerable skills and energy to a
variety of organizations over the past few years.
TPF president Bill Odom said "I'm very pleased with the results of
these elections. We're fortunate to have such capable people willing to
volunteer their time and talents for the Perl community, and I'm looking
forward to working with all of them.
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
wnodom on 2005-10-18T20:23:55
While I understand your concerns, and they're obviously heartfelt, I'd like to clear up what I see as a serious misconception:
You're ceding TPF far more authority than it has, or wants. I may be the newly-minted president of TPF, but I certainly don't consider it or myself the "ultimate authority" over All Things Perl. I view TPF much more as a steward, and an advocate, than a ruling elite. We're part of the community, acting in its service, not its masters.
Can we do a better job of serving the community, listening to it, and keeping it informed? Good heavens, yes. In fact, that's a pretty good summary of my top priorities.
TPF is not the All-Powerful Perl Oligarchy. There isn't one, and there shouldn't be.
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
Alkon on 2005-10-19T14:13:53
I view TPF much more as a steward, and an advocate, than a ruling elite. We're part of the community, acting in its service, not its masters.That is exactly what the issue is. Leadership is not about ruling elite, masters and servants. Every community needs right leadership, and TPF can only do a real service to Community if it assumes true leadership role. And TPF, as it is now, is half-way for the true leadership role. But only half-way, cause true leadership of the Community is not possible if TPF board, the strategic decision body, is not representative of the community. Making TPF board a constituency representative of Community's many recognized leaders is the most crucial next half-way, without which current half-leadership is not only meaningless, but fundamentally harmful in the long run.
If you portray TPF as mere service organization that does some service to the Perl Community, than it is nonsense for mere service provider to hold strategic decision making, funds management and legal rights for work done by entire Community, cause such scheme of things opens doors for (covert) abuse and harmful in many indirect ways, and consequently should be discontinued.
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
Ovid on 2005-10-18T20:38:34
The Perl Foundation Steering Committee is far more than the four members listed in the press release:
- Steering Committee Chair - Bill Odom
- Perl.org - Ask Bjorn Hansen and Robert Spier
- Conferences - Jim Brandt
- PerlFoundation.org - Kirsten Jones
- Public Relations - Andy Lester
- Donor Relations - Larry Hixson
- Perl Mongers - Dave Cross
- Grants - Curtis "Ovid" Poe
- CPAN - Graham Barr
- "At Large" committee members:
- David Adler (Awards)
- Uri Guttman (Social Events)
- Paul Blair (PR)
- Kevin Meltzer
- Ex officio:
- Nathan Torkingon (Secretary)
- Allison Randal (President)
- Kurt DeMaagd (Treasurer)
Most of those names are of people who are extremely well-known in the Perl community. To that extent, it's quite representative. However, as you point out, we're not a democracy. I'm quite happy with that. We're a meritocracy. The people sitting on the steering committee today have demonstrated both a willingness and an ability to positively contribute to the Perl community.
Taking myself as an example, long before I was a member of the Perl Foundation, I released a number of modules on the CPAN, contributed patches to the Perl core and went out of my way to help new programmers learn Perl. I volunteered for the Perl Foundation as a grant manager and for two years showed the ability to manage grants, communicate effectively with the committee and generally Get Things Done. The final straw, if you will, was stepping in to organize the Google Summer of Code projects for TPF.
Regrettably, we've learned over the years that many folks dive into this sort of volunteer work with the best intentions and do a lot of good things. After a while (often a very short while), they burn out and stop doing things. This is why we have a meritocracy. For those put in the most trusted roles of the Perl Foundation, we really need folks who have proven themselves over the long haul. Frankly, I don't blame folks for burning out. The work is tough and it's frequently thankless. I doubt anyone has any idea how hard or diligently Allison has labored for us. We owe her a huge debt. Be sure to let her know how much you appreciate her dedication the next time you run across her in real life on online.
And [the steering committee] happens to hold ULTIMATE authority over work done by Perl Community.
With all due respect, this is not the case. We have very little control over the work done by the Perl community and, in any event, we would not wish to exercise this control. We organize conferences. We handle PR for the Perl community. We manage donor relations, help to stimulate interest in Perl Monger's groups and award grants to folks for doing something that we feel will be beneficial for Perl and the community at large. The vast majority of work done by and for the Perl community is done by volunteers who have no association with the Perl Foundation and who decide, amongst themselves, what they want in the Perl language and community. That's the Programming Republic of Perl. We do the scut work that they don't want to do. As Jello Biafra might say "someone has to clean the sewers".
The steering committee didn't veto the autoboxing patch for Perl. TPF did not decide to deprecate pseudohashes. No TPF committee decided that Parrot should support continuations. That's not what we do.
This is the most fundamental change that is required for further development of Perl Community as it will make for true and transparent leadership of Perl Community, which is vital for Community success. I think it is the most important fundamental change that needs to be done now, and it is up to current members of TPF board, and new President, to initiate and do this change...Actually, if that had been worded a bit differently, I would agree 100%. The most fundamental change required for the Perl Foundation (I speak for myself but I know other members are in agreement on this) is to improve our transparency. In fact, Bill Odom took it upon himself to direct us in that and changes are already underway to facilitate that and they should be unveiled soon. I think most folks will be pleased.
I realize that what I've written may not be the response you are hoping for. Healthy communities will almost always have those who disagree and this disagreement is important for us to consider new ways of looking at things, growing and adapting. Thus, I really appreciate your comments though I do not entirely agree with them. However, you're more than welcome to submit your views to the board. Perhaps they will agree with you.
If you're interested in helping out, let me know. We can always use volunteers. I think I still need another grant manager.
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
Alkon on 2005-10-19T13:31:41
Please, do not confuse things. The steering committee is OK, and it is not the issue. The issue is the most important top level of organization that holds ultimate authority and is the source of ultimate authority that is mostly delegated to (not directly held by) steering committee. The source of ultimate authority is a FUNDAMENTAL THING that shapes entire organization and, consequently, affects entire Community via assumed TPFs leadership role. Despite board is not directly in control of daily operation (like Larry was not directly in control of myriad of development and porting issues), because board holds ultimate authority in the organization, it is a strategic decision body and it is very important to have right people in it (as Perl had in case of Larry). This is a common and well known thing in corporate world - executives (read steering committee) run the business, but board remains strategically in control and ALWAYS representative of corporate stakeholders - this the most fundamental principle that spans on every organization.
The quick example: who was voting on new President? It was board of 4 people, not steering committee (which consist of many recognized members of Perl Community). It is nonsense that 4 people that in no way can be considered representative of Perl community elect a President of TPF that is supposed to perform as Community leadership. An also this is not mere the question of transparency, but most fundamentally it is the need for ultimate authority of the organization that positions itself as Community leadership and holder of legal rights (!) to be representative of Community, not current 4 people. And I don't see any reason why TPF board cannot be extended to wider constituency representing many key and recognized members of the community. Moreover, this fundamental change needs to be done to place firm foundation for TPF as Community's leadership.
However, you're more than welcome to submit your views to the board. Perhaps they will agree with you.That is exactly what I do writing here. But much more importantly, I want to share this issue with Community first to raise it in public, cause I firmly believe that such fundamental issues should be decided in community-wide discussion, not in narrow circles. That is why I write here and I would like other community members to present their arguments publicly, not merely submit them to the board.
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
chromatic on 2005-10-19T16:28:46
I don't see any reason why TPF board cannot be extended to wider constituency representing many key and recognized members of the community.Perhaps many key and recognized members of the community don't want to be on the board. I wouldn't either, even if I had time.
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
Alkon on 2005-10-20T15:13:09
Perhaps many key and recognized members of the community don't want to be on the board. I wouldn't either, even if I had time.Still many would accept board membership if invited to. Most members of extended board are not supposed to be involved in running TPF's every day activities, their job mostly is voting on strategic decisions on board meetings (or by e-mail) for those decisions to reflect interests of the Community at large. Currently organization that calls itself The Perl Foundation receives unprecedented amount of trust from Perl Community, is widely perceived as Community's leadership, receives funds form Community and distribute them and, perhaps most importantly, holds all legal rights and copyrights for Community's all fundamental intellectual property that represent accumulated results of years of work by entire Community, including Parrot and Perl6 innovations. But this should not be blind trust from Community, otherwise it ALWAYS leads to bad things. Such organization simply cannot be controlled by board of self-elected narrow group of 4 people. It is nonsense. Such narrow constituency simply cannot correctly translate interests of Community at large into strategic decisions and such distortion is fundamentally harmful. Plus concentrating ultimate authority in hands of only 4 people exposes their decisions to potential abuses that are very, very hard for Community to monitor (especially at grass level). Plus representative board increases level of trust from Community and this results in higher contribution from Community members and other contributors. Plus... well, many other important things support the natural need for representative board. Obviously, the TPF with its currently assumed fundamental role should be controlled by wide board representative of Community - there is simply NO other way. So I believe many recognized Community members understand this and will accept board membership.
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
hfb on 2005-10-20T18:17:46
What are you smoking, son?
The only reason you think you want to be on that board or in any way involved is that you have a romantic notion of what TPF is rather than a bit more realistic one. It's a PO Box with an occasionally updated web page. There's no smoking man, no star chamber and no conspiracy.
And, as the wise old rabbi once said, "Trust is knowing exactly what someone will do."Re:Fundamental Change Needed
Alkon on 2005-10-21T19:48:33
What are you smoking, son? The only reason you think you want to be on that board or in any way involved is...That was funny, I was smiling:) Thanks for creativity. Let me clear things up. I am personally do not want "on that board", because my presence there is unlikely to solve problem that I want to be solved. "Be involved" is another matter - I think it is not bad for community members, like me and you, to be involved in community affairs - I would even say it is good, if you don't mind.
...that you have a romantic notion of what TPF is rather than a bit more realistic one. Believe me, I am much more realistic than you can even imagine.
It's a PO Box with an occasionally updated web page....no conspiracy Yes, it is just that - a legal entity with only huge intangible assets of community's intellectual property and only 4 people that have LEGAL rights to manage them. Whenever you see such design - do not take it lightly... Or at least do not try to convince others to take it lightly.
And, as the wise old rabbi once said, "Trust is knowing exactly what someone will do."I do not know what you mean, but what that wise rabbi once said is exactly what I am trying to say now. Except, may be, "almost exactly" in our case...
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
chromatic on 2005-10-22T16:38:15
...a legal entity with only huge intangible assets of community's intellectual property... No, only the right to manage the compilation of code contributed by the few members of the community who contribute the code. Your code is your own. The code of CPAN contributors is their own. The TPF does not manage it unless you give them the right to do so.
This will be clearer when the new license and contributor agreements are available.
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
Alkon on 2005-10-23T20:32:04
...a legal entity with only huge intangible assets of community's intellectual property...
No, only the right to manage the compilation of code contributed by the few members of the community who contribute the code. Your code is your own. The code of CPAN contributors is their own. The TPF does not manage it unless you give them the right to do so.
Yes, I mean what you call "the right to manage the compilation of code contributed by the few" - huge intangible assets of Community's intellectual property is actually the legal rights for the whole that none of individual contributors possess. What Perl and Perl code is now is the result of huge collaborative effort over many years - there is a lot of synergy that make the whole immeasurably more valuable than sum of individual contributions. Also note, that collaborative development effort do not span only those "few who contribute the code", it spans entire community, because Perl development is a complex interaction that involves various inputs from end users, module authors, core developers, bug reporters, academic researchers, book authors, publishers, financial contributors, sponsors, volunteer efforts of all kinds, etc., and it spans many years. It is true community-scale effort - the very reason we talk about community, not few code contributors. Without participation and inputs from entire Perl Community Perl would never become what it is now.
And all this huge collaborative effort by entire Community results in synthesis of something whole, the Perl, that, as it happens in our legally driven societies, has legal rights attached to the whole. This is what you call "the right to manage the compilation of code contributed by the few" and what is actually the Community's fundamental intellectual property.
Entire Perl Community depends on the results of its continued collaborative effort, so it has to be very sensitive to how those legal rights for Perl, the result of this community-scale effort, are placed to ensure they are fundamentally secure, correctly managed and monitored by Community. It is logical to have specialized central legal entity holding those rights controlled by Community. In theory, because it is not feasible to have entire Community voting for decisions, the only way such entity can be controlled by Community is via governance by community-representative board assembled as diverse sample of many recognized community members known for their principal contribution in the past. The fundamentally flawed design that we have now is, however, that such legal entity (TPF) is governed by self-elected narrow board of 4 people - it happened somehow.
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
sigzero on 2005-10-20T16:32:21
You keep saying "the source of ultimate authority". Can you define that for me? Who is it or what is it?
I see the TPF as an organization to help evangelize Perl and all that implies.
I am curious to know why you think "fundamental issues should be decided in community-wide discussion"? I was never under the impression that Perl or the Perl community was a democracy.
Inquiring minds want to know. : )
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
Alkon on 2005-10-21T18:58:56
You keep saying "the source of ultimate authority". Can you define that for me? Who is it or what is it?It's a simple question. Read this: BYLAWS OF YET ANOTHER SOCIETY (http://www.perlfoundation.org/legal/bylaws.html), ARTICLE III BOARD, "3.01 General Powers. The business, property, and affairs of the corporation shall be managed by the board of directors." That simple.
For those who is unaware, Yet Another Society is actually what "The Perl Foundation" is alias for.
I am curious to know why you think "fundamental issues should be decided in community-wide discussion"?Because it is natural for fundamental issues to be decided by all who are involved and affected. That's what democracy, and its special case of meritocracy, is. Better you explain me why you think fundamental issues of Perl and Perl Community should be decided by self-elected group of only 4 people? I'd prefer much wider constituency that is much better representative of Community. Or, at least, community-wide discussion instead.
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
sigzero on 2005-10-23T02:58:59
Well let's see. Python is decided by one man (Guido), Ruby is decided by one man (Matz), Tcl does have a TCT panel but that was spelled out when Ousterhout handed it over to them. I always thought Perl was decided by one man (with input from the community), Larry Wall.
I read the bylaws you linked. There is nothing in there about "controlling Perl" and so they would not be "the source of ultimate authority". I think you are making them out to be far more than they are.
Re:Fundamental Change Needed
Alkon on 2005-10-23T20:58:56
Well let's see. Python is decided by one man (Guido), Ruby is decided by one man (Matz), Tcl does have a TCT panel but that was spelled out when Ousterhout handed it over to them. I always thought Perl was decided by one man (with input from the community), Larry Wall.
Yes, Larry was the ultimate authority and it was the right way, but now this is (expectedly) changing, and what I am arguing here is to have this change the right way. Tcl got it. Python and Ruby not yet, but they will eventually go trough a similar transformation.
I read the bylaws you linked. There is nothing in there about "controlling Perl" and so they would not be "the source of ultimate authority".
You are substituting concepts, just a bit, when I am not looking:) "The source of ultimate authority" means that TPF is fully governed by its board and nothing else under the sun. In turn, TPF already holds copyrights for Perl6 and Parrot, and it manages Perl5 copyrights. Moreover (as I already said), TPF is perceived and performs as Community's leadership, makes strategic decisions that affect Perl and Community, and manage funds contributed by Perl Community and other contributors for development of Perl.
But having all this, TPF is not governed by Perl Community - with self-elected narrow board it is almost a private corporation. You are absolutely right noticing that there is nothing in TPF bylaws about "controlling Perl" - there is nothing in there about Perl at all. Even TPF bylaws do not oblige TPF board to pursue interests of Perl development and Perl Community, instead of say their own (why not?). According to bylaws, board members are completely unbound in that respect. In addition, current only 4 board members are not representative of Community at large. This means interests of the Community are not guarantied to be correctly (if at all) transformed into strategic decisions. And those are just few major items in long list of resulting (often implicit) negative consequences of current design.
Re:The Personal Public Face
wnodom on 2005-10-21T13:41:31
I agree with you on the importance of TPF staying engaged and involved, especially outside North America. In fact, this is one of the first issues I discussed with Allison when she asked me if I'd consider taking on my new role. Personally, I intend to follow her example and attend as many conferences and workshops as I can, both inside and outside North America. I strongly encourage other members of TPF to do the same.
This won't be easy. Many of us (myself included) will have to finance these international jaunts out of our own pockets; the beneficence and understanding of employers only extend so far. But it's the right thing to do, and it's worth the effort.
