At 2022-06-03T16:00:15-0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> Recently a situation has arisen that compromises some of these principles
> and thus the entire status of the project, creating consternation among
> many users and contributors.
Some of us on this list remember the original BDSi fight, the 386BSD to FreeBSD, then NetBSD and OpenBSD (I was friends with both sides of many of these wars). You mentioned some others, which I was also a witness to.
Sadly, because we are people, people have egos and we are all somewhat flawed, this is not a new thing.
The specific events really do not matter, as much as we realized that the governance of a project like this needs to be a tad more structured. The "benevolent dictator for life" (BDFL) model only works if the subject is willing to accept her/him, and he/she truly tries to act in the best interest of the whole. We have examples of that model working in a few cases, and we have examples as you pointed out, where it has failed.
Previously, we unfortunately never spent the time to codify how we would deliver on these concepts. Rather, we have relied on an informal use of traditional free and open-source principles.
The leaders of the Steering Group have been (and I expect will continue to) "burning a lot of midnight oil" hashing this out -> what worked, works, what has not. Looking at other large distributed projects, with a particular focus on FOSS-based ones, that have been modeled using a BSD style license (the traditional license for simh) which are made up of fellow travelers with diverse interests. We have tried to come up with what we think can work for us as a community. That is to say, we also have some excellent examples of a governance model more appropriate to where the simh community is at this time.
We have used our best judgment in setting up this structure but are open to discussion and consideration of other ideas, and to making improvements. Many of us have been part of different projects and understand that past mistakes are real. We have tried to learn from these experiences and apply the collected wisdom appropriately. We desire to hear from the community as we update and refine the operating structure for the Open SIMH project.
The point is we don't want to have the project splinter, but rather continue to be broadly available to everyone - rather we are trying to bring it back together. This action is defining what the mainline is, and formalizing the governance to help make this real. It also is/had been a time for us to examine IP ownership, license status, etc. For instance, the simtools directory contained non-BSD style license technology. We started to ask the question of what is the best way we can handle that.
My own take is I would hate to see something good harmed, as an unintended consequence. I suspect the other members of the Steering group feel similarly. We have taken a specific action that we hope can become the force to stabilize and clear up any ambiguity that previous structures might have allowed and provide a way for changes to be considered by the community in a manner that will be more acceptable to other organizations -- for instance, the Linux distros want a more formal released process, which we have not had (for good reasons BTW).
Good cooking takes time - please bear with us, but we are here to listen and consider different ideas.
Clem Cole
member, SIMH Steering Group
By changing some of these details now