This is right. Not only funding, though. There is already quite a bit—pledged 20 FTE-equivalent resources already. But not organized under a well-defined governance. Unfortunately, being open-source is used as an excuse in these discussions. Then, looking at successful open-source initiatives like Eclipse Foundation and CNCF is sufficient.
I don’t know what to say here… I am asking myself, if I should even answer, of if I am pouring more oil in this weird flame ware of yours.
On what basis are you stating this ? Have you managed to come by a leaked controlling report that proves someone is wasting resources ? AFAIK you have zero insights to what amount of resources anyone is putting into ROS, and how well or not well they are spend.
From my point of view you are throwing around accusations, that everybody is doing a bad job, that not backed up by anything except your opinion.
7 Likes
My software and system engineering knowledge and insights of the past computer scientists. My observations with other projects and foundations.
But really, nobody can say anything about the status of the Foundation for more than one year? What is the structure? How independent the Foundation is? What are the rules of engagement? Who is responsible for the maintenance? Who is responsible for the documentation? How to cover their expenses? Intrinsic? The TSC? Me? Who?
Does it look organized? At least we are promised some answers now. Let’s see…
I have added a PhD thesis on the governance of the Eclipse Foundation. It says it is one of two successful cases to manage a transition from a one-company-sponsored project to an open ecosystem with involving community and business ecosystem.
Somehow you always assume I don’t do my homework before I speak.
Any you are an expert now because you read an PHD thesis, or have tons of experience managing such projects ? I would say no, so in the end it is your opinion.
As you can see here, it is super easy to criticize someone from an outside perspective.
Perhaps an example you can relate to, that I heard too often ‘What you can’t make a car drive autonomous ? That is super easy, look, my 14 year old can drive a car, it can’t be that hard.You must be dumb or something, that you can’t teach that to a computer.’
From your experience on this topic you should know, stuff it not as easy as it looks.
My point being : Yeah, the current state of ros might be a bit chaotic, but I think you are also exaggerating. There are still people working on improvements, there are still maintainers its not like the projects is abandoned or something.
And the people who run this project for a living are most likely pouring their heart into this project and working their asses off. So give them some slack, or at least try to dial back your tone.
3 Likes
Do you people remember when “News of the Week” used to be about… “the news of the week”?
24 Likes
Never said easy. That’s why I put a lot of importance on governance and bring it often. When did you plan to talk about this transition? This must be handled before the deal. Still, we do not know many things. So many problems start from here.
We don’t have to be friends or sisters to contribute to a software project. I am worried that there is so much emotional response here. Some are sincere I believe, but some are not. Then I tell you to keep it professional. Rules, well-defined responsibilities, acknowledging different goals/motivations to contribute, and institutional structure… Especially responsibilities I emphasized a lot.
However, I must protect myself from personal attacks here as the moderation has not shown a professional attitude since the beginning. I am milder than anyone who is trying to police my tone including moderators. So I will kindly ask you to contact moderators if you see a problem with my tone.
For second class tasks (maintenance, quality assurance), I said the criticism is, and must be, harsher compared to feature requests as the whole community would be affected negatively by those universal problems. Therefore, the responsibility for these tasks cannot be assigned to individuals but to institutional structures. The concept of limited liability is there to protect individuals. Said many times, my criticism is always directed at the Foundation. But you take them personally because the necessary separation between institutional functions and personas is not established in the community. I do not get the impression that the Foundation is aware of the depth of the problem or maybe they prefer that way.
I read a news about the two-person Foundation this week. That was the news to me.
Wow, it is impressive, how you state that your tone is mild, while at the same time doing your blame thing, and insulting the moderators of either being incompetent, or not doing their job. Its sentences like these, that at least I consider offensive, and from the amount of push back you are seeing, I might not be the only one…
Sorry, for the noise, I said everything I wanted to say…
6 Likes
True, but at the same time it is very difficult to voice a concern without it sounding as negative criticism.
I think there are two main reasons why this kind of heated discussions keep popping up:
- It’s not clear what exactly are the goals of the OSRF,
- There’s no community interaction on those goals; i.e. there hasn’t been a community debate on what would be the ideal direction for the OSRF, neither before nor after the Intrinsic deal.
As far as I know, the OSRF currently has two employees, one CEO and one CTO.
I think it is important to recognize that these people are in a unique position, as they are the only ones that are independently funded to spend 100% of their time on the strategic direction ROS/Gazebo/Open-RMF is heading.
The primary responsibility of a CEO is:
- To formulate a mission statement,
- To formulate a strategic plan to reach those long term goals,
- To ensure that the necessary funding is secured to realize the plan, and
- To hire the key people to do it.
I tried to find the mission statement of the OSRF.
If you scroll down here you will find a mission statement, but it is too vague to be actionable. Neither did I find any statements on this discourse or through google about the goals of the OSRF (or the progress it is making towards its goals) by @Vanessa_Yamzon_Orsi.
Based on this post by @gbiggs, it seems that the targets of the OSRF are “ownership and organisation”. I did not find further clarification about what exactly is meant with ‘ownership’ and ‘organisation’.
Actionable suggestion 1:
I think it would be beneficial if the OSRF could be clear on its goals and the progress towards those goals.
If the OSRF does not communicate its goals, people tend to invent goals and then are either happy or frustrated depending on whether the outcome of the OSRF actions corresponds to their expectations or not.
Actionable suggestion 2:
I also think it would be beneficial to have some sort of open discussion about this.
I think this is important in a regular company setting, and only more so for a community project.
Then wrt. the CTO role:
The main responsibility of a CTO is:
- To ensure that the the strategic plan is translated into actionable short- and mid-term projects,
- To ensure that formal (written!) specifications are drawn up for each of those projects,
- To set priorities and establish a time schedule (obviously in a volunteering-based setting, the schedule is a ‘whish list’ rather than enforcable), and
- To ensure that all developments conform to the specifications.
“Ensure” means that the CTO does not necessarily have to so this work himself, but that the CTO holds final responsibility for all developments.
Based on this post, I conclude that @gbiggs has a very different interpretation of his role.
Fair enough, but what exactly is the role of the CTO of the OSRF then?
Moreover, without a clear mission statement, how can a CTO do his job?
Actionable suggestion 3:
I think it would be beneficial if the OSRF could clarify the role of the CTO and how it interpretes the technical leadership aspect of that role.
Imo. as long as there is no settled and accepted consensus on this, we will see remarks such as “The OSRF should take ownership of documentation.” every few months.
As someone new to this community, my journey began unexpectedly when messages from the forum, to which I am subscribed, started appearing in my inbox. Among these, your messages stood out as particularly intriguing. Typically, I would directly message someone to discuss any concerns, but the recurring theme in your posts prompted a different approach. After observing the content you share on your profile, it’s clear that there’s an emerging pattern that warrants a public response for a matter that seems to have escalated beyond a simple one-on-one conversation. I aim to address this with the utmost respect and will put you through it very politely but I urge you to consider the critical essence of my message and let it sink in…
Firstly, your arguments contain several logical fallacies that detract from their credibility. I encourage you to review what these are in your own time. It’s also disheartening to see content that feels like expressions of being overlooked, especially coming from some young man of your potential.
Secondly, healthy competition and innovative ideas are what propel a community forward. Recognition and progress are achieved through one’s contributions, not by undermining others. People clap success. Sadly, instead of seeing messages of congratulations and constructive input, I’ve encountered negativity surrounding this topic.
Lastly it’s crucial to remember our position within this community. We start as guests and earn our place as contributors. This role carries the responsibility of upholding to the community standards. Moderators are here to maintain order and should be treated with respect, not targeted with constant criticism or harassment. Reflect on your intentions: Are you picking these posts and participating in them to engage constructively with the original poster’s work or to forcefully assert your views and react negatively when they’re not embraced? Avoid the latter one and do not personalize your criticism.
Many of us join this forum to learn and exchange knowledge. Let this situation serve as a reminder of that goal. This incident highlights a valuable lesson for all of us. Having shared my thoughts, I’ve decided to unsubscribe. I hope this message resonates and contributes to a more positive and respectful forum environment for everyone.
5 Likes
Normally, I would not respond to a new anonymous account but this was very polite. You should know that I am very familiar with corrupt governments (first-hand experience) and their various manipulation tactics in media and elsewhere.
Of course, there is no pointer about those logical fallacies I committed, but this type of feedback on the content never happened, either. The OSRF is incorporated in California so I will base my argument on the First Amendment (there is a nice WeThePeople museum in Washington, DC), which protects the right to criticize the government and public officials. This is a constitutional right. So,
I propose the first amendment of ROS social contract to be the right to criticize the Foundation and its staff.
It’s not hard to voice concerns in a constructive manner. I’d encourage everyone to look at @gavanderhoorn 's post as an example.
As to the roles and responsibilities of a CEO and CTO, these are things I am very familiar with and though I can’t speak for the entire board, I remain very happy with everything
@Vanessa_Yamzon_Orsi and @gbiggs have been doing to move us all forwards, both what’s in the public eye, and what (by necessity) cannot be (ex. discussions with companies to increase or change their method of contributions).
A reply on some of the more general topics raised about remains forthcoming.
6 Likes
The point I try to make is not a value judgement about someone’s work.
The point I try to make is that it is not visible what the OSRF stands for.
What are its goals? What is the strategy? What accomplishments are there towards the goals? Where do they want to be in 3y, 5y, 10y? Do they aim to raise money? Grow in FTE’s? If not, why not?
I also don’t like @doganulus’ tone, but I do think he has a point about the following:
Do we agree on that? Or not? Does the OSRF see it as it’s responsibility to take on a leading role for these tasks? Or not? Or maybe in the future?
More general: does the OSRF envisage a target quality level for ROS 2? What quality level? Does it see it as it’s responsibility to take on a leading role wrt reaching that quality level?
Have all these topics thouroughly been discussed? And decided? Or are some still pending? What options were considered? Is there room for participation from the community in defining the goals and strategy? Or not? If not: why not?
I think those are not inappropriate questions to ask.
4 Likes
Let’s get back to news! My “”“news”“” this week:
We had a long weekend in the US. I went skiing; it was great. I saw someone (who was evidently learning snowboarding) wearing turtle 
knee and butt pads. I didn’t get a photo of them, but I found this online:
Probably a bit more comfortable than strapping TurtleBots to your knees and butt, eh
21 Likes
Thanks @christophebedard , this is most useful suggestion in the entire thread 
(Please do not reply to this message, I am kidding)
8 Likes
As promised, a response:
7 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.