[TUHS] Re: Fwd: [simh] Announcing the Open SIMH project

[Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3610 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 4:23 PM G. Branden Robinson <
g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6286 bytes --]