For a not-for-profit organization such as ArduPilot, no matter how many engineering hours we contribute to ROS, even if it were 1000 FTE equivalent or donate tons of money, it seems that in the current proposal, there is no way that we could influence the direction of ROS 2 to support the aerial platforms such as ArduPilot because we are not eligible for any seats on the TSC.
Under the current model, is there any way for the ArduPilot organization to influence the technical direction of ROS to better support aerial applications of ROS?
@RFRIEDM
First, to clarify, the ROS 2 TSC is being wound down (it just had its final meeting).
If you are referring to the Technical Governance Committee (TGC), Associate members have a non-voting representative on the TGC. This seat represents the opinions of all Associate members of the OSRA, which includes all academic institutions, non-profits, and governmental agencies who join the OSRA at the discounted Associate membership fee.
Furthermore, the TGC has been explicitly designed so that no member, even a Platinum member, has the ability to drive any specific decision on their own without convincing a majority of the other representatives that it is of value to the OSRA/OSRF and its projects. Being an effective representative on the TGC will require being able to make a case to the other representatives that what you are proposing is in the best interests of the overall organization and community. Decisions made by consensus of all the representatives give the best result for the whole.
Having said that, the TGC sets technical direction for the OSRA as a whole, and does not directly control the direction of any one project, other than providing technical guidance, feedback, and recommendations. Yes, the TGC can ask projects to give priority to, for example, improving software quality, but the TGC is unlikely to be able to say âplease concentrate on aerial robotsâ and then see the project do precisely that - in part because the projects are ultimately developed by volunteers, and in part because half the TGC is made up of project representatives who would probably disagree with the TGC giving such a direct instruction to a PMC without acceptable justification.
If you are referring to the Project Management Committee (PMC) for ROS, no organization gets any kind of seat on the PMCs. Only individuals can be involved in the PMC for a project, and they obtain their position through merit and recognition by their peers. It is possible for someone whose interest is in making ROS work better in aerial applications to become a PMC Member and thus have a direct voice in the projectâs day-to-day management. It would take some time because recognition must be built up and then there is a mentorship to go through, but itâs entirely possible. This doesnât guarantee, however, that what that PMC Member wants will happen; other PMC Members may disagree, and even if they agree, someone still has to actually do it.
Finally, the best way to influence the direction of any of our projects, including ROS, is to contribute to the project. If you want ROS to support a feature, contribute that feature and it will most likely get merged, as long as itâs not clearly bad for a segment of the community. No one has to be an OSRA member or be on any committee to contribute to any of our projects.
If you would like to see ROS include specific features that provide better support for aerial applications, the best place to be involved is by getting those features contributed, either through implementing and contributing them yourself, or through paying someone to implement and contribute them for you.