Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Martin Schulze Steps Down As SPI Vice President 123

Posted by timothy from the dissension dept.
Tina Gasperson reports on NewsForge that Martin Schulze, Vice President of Software in the Public Interest, is resigning his position there to protest the lack of time he says fellow SPI higher-ups are devoting to the organization. Since SPI serves as a coordinating body for several large-scale Free software projects (like GNOME and OpenOffice.org), discord there should concern a lot of people. Update: 11/26 03:14 GMT by T : That should read "OpenSource.org," not "OpenOffice.org." Sorry.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Martin Schulze Steps Down As SPI Vice President More

Martin Schulze Steps Down As SPI Vice President

Comments Filter:

  • Well... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lobo ( 10944 )
    You might not agree with him, but that took some guts to do. I wish more people were so dedicated to their beliefs.

  • Really? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Since SPI serves as a coordinating body for several large-scale Free software projects (like GNOME and OpenOffice.org), discord there should concern a lot of people.

    Wait, so they have an organization where all the bloated and out-of-control projects go to congregate? Is it like AA or Overeaters Anonymous? Wow, they've got everything on the Internet these days!
    • If it makes you feel any better, I don't think OpenOffice.org has anything to do with this and is still bloated all on its own. It looks like Timothy misread OpenSource.org to be OpenOffice.org.

  • text of the article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25, 2002 @10:32PM (#4756092)
    Topic - Free Software [newsforge.com] Tina Gasperson [mailto] -
    Citing frustration over the operations of Software in the Public Interest [spi-inc.org], its Vice President Martin Schulze gave an ultimatum: either the President, Secretary, and one of the board of directors resigns, or he does. Guess who's leaving? Schulze asked Nils Lohner, president; Wichert Akkerman, secretary, and Ian Jackson of the B.O.D. to step down because he felt they weren't dedicating enough time and effort to their positions. "All three of them have shown in the past that they are able to give valuable input to various issues. However, all three have also shown that they are too busy to work on the tasks they signed up once. Hence, they should resign and let less busy people to the work instead," he wrote in a petition to the SPI membership.

    "I don't see how SPI can work properly without a functioning Secretary and Board members who are too busy to make it even to the meetings. If those people wish to work on SPI matters and if their input is valuable, they should rather act as formal advisor, so SPI doesn't suffer from their overload but can benefit from their input," he added.

    "In our current situation, with the currently assembled Board of Directors, with too many too busy Board members who are permanently not able to attend IRC Board meetings, join discussions and votes via mail and - from my perspective - a non-functioning Secretary with too many pending issues and problems writing and correcting minutes etc., I don't see a chance for SPI to work as our members and affiliated projects deserve.

    "I believe that the Board requires a large change and that these members need to free their position so new people with more time and enthusiasm can join the Board and work on behalf of SPI."

    Schulze wrote that, of the three he asked to resign, only Nils Lohner responded - and according to Schulze he has agreed to step down from his position as president. "Nils Lohner told the Board half a year ago that he will be absent for half a year. Once he was back, he let us know that he intends to resign since his new work environment did not leave enough room for SPI and he would not be able to act a Board member accordingly. Neither Wichert nor Ian even raised a word," says Schulze.

    Barring voluntary resignations, Schulze noted article seven of the SPI by-laws, which provides for the forced removal of a director when "sufficient causes exist for such removal."

    But ultimately, Schulze decided to remove himself from the situation, rather than pursue the matter further. "I hereby step down as vice president of Software in the Public Interest, Inc. I have announced the intention to step more than two weeks ago, and I also asked for help about a week later with no responses," he announced.

    Software in the Public Interest, Inc., was established as a non-profit in 1997 and acts as an umbrella for Free Software projects such as Debian, GNOME, and OpenSource.org. The last published minutes are from a July 2002 board meeting, when the group officially approved GNU Texmacs as a sponsored project. At that meeting they also turned down Bruce Perens' request for the organization to get on board with his Sincer Choice initiative, because of its claim "We support a broad range of copyright policies, from Public Domain through Open Source and Free Software to Proprietary." SPI board members stated that it is a Free Software organization and does not agree with any policy that supports proprietary software.

    Since Schulze's resignation on Sunday, 19-year-old Debian developer Jimmy Kaplowitz threw his hat into the ring, stating "Right now, SPI membership means very little other than a subscription to spi-private. We should involve the members, so that we can receive their input and ideas. This would involve more use of the public and members-only mailing lists, wherever it wouldn't violate confidentiality. I am thinking now of Nils Lohner's message to spi-general when membership was first introduced, and we need to again ask the members what they want the board to be doing.

    "I would be honored to serve as an SPI board member, and I hope that I am given the chance."

    • Long before I became a GNU/Linux user I marveled at the some of the managment idea's generated by Microsoft. This resignation is a volunteer managment crisis issue and IMHO managment idea's are Microsoft's best output.
      Think of the centuries of business history being generated. So with this in mind:

      "Let's look at what David Thielen revealed in his book The 12 Simple Secrets of Microsoft Management

      1 Hire the best
      At Microsoft, the single most important contributor to productivity is regarded as the quality of the employees. Without the very best staff, it is unlikely you will realise your full business potential.

      2 Bet the company
      Bill Gates has never been afraid to completely alter the direction of Microsoft if he believes it necessary to maintain the dominant position of the company (consider his heavy gambles on Windows). If you are convinced that your company needs to move into new areas to stay ahead of the game, have the courage of your convictions.

      3 Require failure
      Microsoft not only forgives genuine mistakes by its employees, it positively expects them! Employees are required to show initiative and take responsibility. Reasonable failures are therefore expected.

      4 Managers must be qualified
      Microsoft's managers are required to have a good detailed technical knowledge of the work being carried out by their teams. This means they have the respect of their staff and can make informed decisions.

      5 Measure employees on performance
      The value of a Microsoft employee is judged entirely by his or her actual day-to-day performance. This is valued far above length of service, experience, loyalty or past successes. The highest standards are therefore certain to be maintained.

      6 Spend money frugally
      Microsoft insists on a corporate culture of modest spending on peripherals: employees do not take expensive flights; offices are uniformly simple, even for the top executives; and entertaining is never unnecessarily lavish.

      7 Keep it small
      Microsoft attempts to maintain the advantages enjoyed by small businesses, such as autonomy, good communication and mobility. It divides itself as far as possible into small work groups which, while still pursuing a common goal, are each functionally independent.

      8 Think 'Domination'
      Microsoft cultivates a culture where every employee is focused on 'total world domination'.
      Encourage your employees to think of every project in terms of winning market share and dominating the marketplace.

      9 'Bill is watching'
      The very top level of Microsoft management, and that includes Bill Gates him-self, exert enormous control over every aspect of the company. They do this by insisting on a hands-on approach and always finding time to investigate the detailed workings of specific projects. They are never wholly 'out-of-touch' with the day-to-day running of the business.

      10 Great morale is essential
      Morale directly affects employee productivity. Microsoft make sure their staff are happy and have a great team spirit. This means allowing them freedom, ownership of projects and good reward packages, including share options."

      *You can't get better ownership plan than the SPI.

      "11 Cut the bureaucracy
      Microsoft is very conscious of eliminating any unnecessary red tape that reduces its efficiency. Employee complaints about bureaucracy are taken seriously, and meetings are always expected to produce real decisions.

      12 Make staff feel at home"

      Pure "Microsoft"?
      Small managment lesson for SPI?
      Just make you giggle?

    • Sincere Choice note (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bruce Perens ( 3872 )
      Note that the Sincere Choice language was changed slightly, very slightly, to meet the objections from SPI and others. It's no longer an issue.

      Bruce

    • ...was "eh?"

      I mentioned this article to Ian Jackson just now, and it was the first he'd heard of any of this.

  • Yet Another Open-Source Pissing Contest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tassach ( 137772 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @10:35PM (#4756101)
    I swear the open source community is often it's own worse enemy. Since (almost) noone is making money doing it, the primary form of compensation is ego gratification. If someone doesn't get their way, they throw a temper tantrum and go off on their own. The end result is forked code trees, huge amounts of duplicated effort, and projects that never go anywhere.

    • Re:Yet Another Open-Source Pissing Contest (Score:4, Insightful)

      by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @11:24PM (#4756324) Journal
      Probably quite true, about ego gratification. As a totally unqualified guess, I would say that perhaps 5 - 10% of the people who espouse open source actually have the technical skills to back up their clout, let alone the business skills.

      Interesting title to your post, BTW; it makes me wonder if the goal of the contest is not so much the pissing as it is putting out a fire?
    • I swear the open source community is often it's own worse enemy.

      Nah, no one wants free software to go away except vendors of crappy closed source software. Free and Open software folks can have their differences but the commonality is much greater.

      Since (almost) noone is making money doing it, the primary form of compensation is ego gratification.

      What a crock, lots of people are making a good living with free software. Even pioneers such as RMS got by. Now that free software is universally recognized as superior to other software, there is a much larger demand. Show me someone who does not get some ego gratification from their job and I'll show you someone who should be doing something else.

      If someone doesn't get their way, they throw a temper tantrum and go off on their own.

      This is unique to free software? -Bangs his fist and insults a federal judge- Have you ever seen the monkeyboy dance [earthlink.net]? If your eyes don't convince you, just read this article [nytimes.com]. I would never ever want to work at a place like that. It looks like they treat each other worse than they treat the rest of the world.

      The end result is forked code trees, huge amounts of duplicated effort, and projects that never go anywhere.

      Said another way, free software could never make a working operating system, an easy to use GUI, it's chaos, blah, blah, bull shit on a stick This message posted with Mozilla and [mozilla.org] Windowmaker [windowmaker.org] on X11 under Debian [debian.org], software so superior to comercial junk I can never ever go back.

      SPI will survive this little tussle and free softare will survive SPI.

    • I don't think that someone you're talking about is Martin "Joey" Schultze. He's been a very dedicated worker for about a decade. If he says the other folks aren't putting in much time, they probably aren't.

      Bruce

    • (Almost) no one making money? What do you mean? That IBM & Brothers ain't making money? That thousands of ISPs and organisations ain't making money? That a few millions of developers and sysadmins ain't making money?

      Let me tell you one thing. I and many sysadmins started to get real money when we went Linux/BSD/Solaris/AIX/Novell. Yes, some of these systems are commercial but you should note that 90% of the main apps used on them, are OSS certified. Anyway, I could see my salary going four times higher than before. And I had 13 years of DOS/Windows experience before kicking the whole crap outta my desk. And what I and many other of my colleagues do now is ten times more complex and subtile than what you could do under Windows crappyness. I should remark you that to find some stupid detail inside Windows code, that was causing critical problems, I had to dig up over tons of documentation for days or even weeks. That C2 certification whoopla on NT, took me one month to end up with the clear and straight fact that one cannot enforce the most basic of C2 specs inside that shitty NT 4, no matter the stupid hype and NSA's docs. Similar things never happened to me under OSS - to get a positive or negative answer, I get things straight in a matter of hours or a few days. And that's what people like on me, because time is damn bloody money no matter you do it in closed or open source.

      And that's my ego gratification.
    • Welcome to humanity. Any time you put a group of people togeather, you're going to have to deal with politics. And one aspect of such politics is clashing egos - the pissing contest. I've seen such clashes in civic and arts groups, sports groups, military oragnizations, government organizations, and corporate organizations. I've seen it played out between entire work groups or divisions and within a small development group. It is certainly not a product of the open source community itself. It is a product of people.

      The only possible difference is that the open source community is more transparent than most groups. Discussions, complaints, and outright fueds take place in public forums (and I'm sure there are more than a few goings-on behind closed doors too). And if the forum in question is too obscure for the majority, sites like Slashdot are sure to tune everyone in on the juicy details.

      Steve Jobs supposedly claimed that creating was a messy process. Perhapse he's right. There will be disagreements and conflicting ideas. These will lead to code forks and duplicated effort. Projects will compete. Some will die. The successful ones will flourish.

      Does it always have to be this way? No. A lot can be done with complete cooperation. But it is simply not within human nature to cooperate fully all the time - within open source projects or any other endeavor.

  • A 19 year old??? (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by NineNine ( 235196 )
    Since Schulze's resignation on Sunday, 19-year-old Debian developer Jimmy Kaplowitz threw his hat into the ring, stating "Right now, SPI membership means very little other than a subscription to spi-private. We should involve the members, so that we can receive their input and ideas. This would involve more use of the public and members-only mailing lists, wherever it wouldn't violate confidentiality. I am thinking now of Nils Lohner's message to spi-general when membership was first introduced, and we need to again ask the members what they want the board to be doing.

    "I would be honored to serve as an SPI board member, and I hope that I am given the chance."

    This must be some prestigious organization if a 19 year old is offering to serve on the board...

    • Re:A 19 year old??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alister ( 60389 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @10:45PM (#4756163) Homepage Journal
      This must be some prestigious organization if a 19 year old is offering to serve on the board...

      That's a pretty contemptible position to hold. As it seems you have no idea of Jimmy Kaplowitz's capabilities or experience, you're judging him based solely on age - which is likely to be irrelevant. I hope the SPI does take him seriously. Surely the more legitimate position would be not to question the SPI because a 19 year old threw his hat into the ring, but to firstly determine his suitability based on relevant criteria, and secondly to question why this doesn't happen more often with more mainstream boards (and not just non-profits, either). I've met some pretty impressive 19 year olds before; there are no doubt many, many more that I haven't met.

      Alister

    • This must be some prestigious organization if a 19 year old is offering to serve on the board...

      Ageism. Nice. You know like racism except it is focused on discrimination because of age. I've met plenty of 19 year olds with more intelligence, class, and maturity than 40 year olds. And, by the looks of it, you.
      • The difference in this case is that the ageism is built on a very, very, very reasonable inference: that someone who is 19 years old is unlikely to have the experience and cultivation of character required to lead an organization of this type. They may have character, poise, integrity, and even a decent amount of knowledge and perspective. But it isn't enough. Even a brilliant 19 year old who graduated from university at 15 still would have only 4 years experience in a work environment at best, and quite likely only in one small facet of it. It's a matter of math - there's just not enough time lived yet to put the requisite experiences in for a real organization of any breadth.

        And, while I've met some 40 year olds who were as immature as most 19 year olds, too, I've never met a 19 year old that was truly as matured in a well-rounded sense (meaning more than just having a sense of presence) than a decently mature 40 year old.

    • Re:A 19 year old??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by obi ( 118631 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @11:06PM (#4756256)
      Oh well, if a 19-year old (http://www.marcelothewonderpenguin.com/) currently has the final say in what goes in _your_ kernel (that is, if you're running Linux) then why not trust Jimmy.

      There's no reason why someone who's been on this earth a little longer automatically deserves more respect. Experience can often help, but is surely no guarantee.

      Judge the guy on what he does, not on his age, skin tone, sex, ...

      Read your entire post again, and compare your and his comments. Who deserves the most respect?

      • Re:A 19 year old??? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Has it occurred to you that maybe a 19 year old is able to perform complex technical tasks but might lack the knowledge of human interactions and politics required for such a role ?

        No ? Then perhaps you are also of tender years ?

        • I wonder how much politics goes on in being a kernel maintainer.... people grow more experianced with time but it is amazing what honesty and fresh ideas can be brought into the mix with younger blood. true he might not be ready to be a C.E.O. but this is a board position, someone who gets their opinions out and contributes to the greater good. Don't always believe that experiance is the answer to all things
        • As for Marcelo, he got in that position (kernel maintainer) not only because of technical skills, but also because he had the necessary people management skills, a sense of responsabilty, and the energy to do it.

          Now tell me that the job of stable kernel maintainer doesn't involve "human interactions and politics".

          That wasn't my point, however. My point was that you should judge him on his actions, not automatically assume he must be crap at human interactions and politics because he's 19, or technical minded (geek -> bad social skills? almost catched another prejudice :-) - just kidding, I know you didn't say that).

          In other words, I agree that there might be alot of 19 year olds with good technical skills and bad social skills. I merely wanted the original poster to change his default assumptions, there's probably a bunch of 19-year olds that _are_ up to the task. And if people with these prejudices are in a position of power, these young ones would not be given a chance.

      • Age can help as well as be a hinderance. A mix of all ages and reasonable discussion would be better (as it is now). Too young: reinventing the wheel, to old: assembler is for sissies, I write binary. (To put it almost over the edge) Common sense here seems the most productive. I'm a horrible project leader, an excellent binary programmer, as well as at creating extraordinary ideas that either won't work or never gets finished and mediocre at everything else, putting me (25) in the lead of this for instance would be insane, even if i do have years of development experience.
      • Nineteen year olds DO have the time and enthusiasm needed to do this sort of thing. They also have fewer distractions and the tech runs deeper in them as they have been using it their ENTIRE lives. I wish my employers would take me seriously and not think of me as 'the kid', I can run circles around most of their Systems Engineers.
    • Yeah, it must really suck to know that a 19 year-old is way smarter than you 8)
    • > This must be some prestigious organization if a 19 year old is offering to serve on the board...

      I've met Jimmy. He's a pretty prestigious guy. Can't say the same about you, though.

    • Re:A 19 year old??? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by The Tyro ( 247333 )
      Generally speaking, one might imply a lesser degree of LIFE experience based on age (almost by definition), but this may be totally irrelevant to his other qualifications.

      Some people develop more quickly than others... how old was Alexander the Great when he conquered the known world? 20?

      Some of us were unvarnished idiots when we were 19 years old (speaking only for my own idiocy of course... some people would say nothing's changed... oh well), but this guy might be the next Einstein or Fermi.

      Anyway, getting to the point, you really should judge this individual based on his qualifications, and nothing else. Anything less, and you run the risk of being labeled, perhaps rightly, as some kind of age/sex/race/religion/etc bigot (as some posters have already alleged). Objective criteria should be your only yardstick.

      I don't know the individual in question, so I cannot vouch for his savant-like programming 5k1LLZ (or lack thereof).

      Give the guy a chance. Really. What could it hurt?
    • We should, of course, only allow older, bitter, grumpier developers to have a say in the direction of the organisations that steer our collective future.

      Boundless idealism and energy, as frequently espoused by the youth of today, have no place *at all* in the boundlessly idealistic open source movement.

      Signed, a 34 year old Bitter.

      Idiot.

  • It's always a pity... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Qwerpafw ( 315600 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @10:37PM (#4756119) Homepage
    when good things run into problems because of personal issues.

    And while all parties involved will (of course) deny that the cause is personal issues, it seems rather obvious.

    I mean, the VP resigns because he feels the other high ranking officials aren't "dedicated" enough? In whose opinion? And why not appoint other functionaries to do the jobs that need doing?

    No, resignations like this (especially the sort where you have "either they all resign or I do...") are almost always personally motivated out of a feeling to "show someone" how much in the wrong they are.

    And it almost never helps. This is a lose-lose situation. Imagine if the rest of the board had resigned... credibility would fly out the window.

    Like I said, it is always saddening when a good organization has problems because of people not getting along. While I don't know a lot about SPI, it seems they do, uhm open source stuff (:P their website is kinda hard to understand in that it is very very generalized. Slashdot could have the same mission statement as them and not change significantly).
    • I admit I've never been in charge of a large corporation, but I've headed (relatively) large organizations, and from one of those (a newspaper) I did resign, and I honestly think it was the best option. Here's why:

      Let's say, honestly, that the senior management really wasn't dedicated enough. Now, if you hired the guys and then retained them, then that's your fault, but a lot of times, people either were hired significantly before you arrived or don't report directly to you. Firing a large portion of the senior management can be extremely demoralizing in that case, especially if you have to leapfrog over your managers or bully them into doing it (because it implies they are incompetent). Even if you try to string it out, you have a problem, because if you respond to the problem fast enough, people will lose morale, whereas if you take too long, the problems that these people cause will simply get worse. So frequently you end up trying to compromise: you fire or at least shift around responsibility as far as you can and try to enliven things. A lot of times, if the manager is competent, that works, and things improve enough that you can wait for the next round (if needed; a lot of times, revitalizing management by removing the deadwood exposes some real gems that previously didn't shine). Sometimes, it really just does not, and you're stuck. Further, sometimes, the people, as in my case, are too thoroughly entrenched (kinship or friendship reasons, for example), and you really have only two options: resign, or ride the ship down. I chose to resign.

      I'm not saying that he absolutely resigned because he was in exactly the same situation. He may not have been a competent manager, and certainly, I would never declare that either everyone went or I went even if that really was the situation, because it would needlessly embitter everyone in volved. But there are really legitimate reasons why even a very good CEO or president may resign other than his (or her) incompetency.

    • Re:It's always a pity... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dbarclay10 ( 70443 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @11:39PM (#4756385)

      I mean, the VP resigns because he feels the other high ranking officials aren't "dedicated" enough? In whose opinion? And why not appoint other functionaries to do the jobs that need doing?

      No, resignations like this (especially the sort where you have "either they all resign or I do...") are almost always personally motivated out of a feeling to "show someone" how much in the wrong they are.

      And it almost never helps. This is a lose-lose situation. Imagine if the rest of the board had resigned... credibility would fly out the window.

      Like I said, it is always saddening when a good organization has problems because of people not getting along. While I don't know a lot about SPI, it seems they do, uhm open source stuff (:P their website is kinda hard to understand in that it is very very generalized. Slashdot could have the same mission statement as them and not change significantly).

      I'm one of the head honchos of one of the projects that are under SPI's umbrella, and I think I speak for all of them when I say:

      SHUT THE FUCK UP.

      How dare you personally attack Martin? He is one of the most dedicated people I know - not only to SPI, but also to Debian. And those are just the projects I'm part of, the ones where I acutally know what the hell I'm talking about. (Hint.)

      SPI board meetings are a joke. They're poorly attended, and they ... well, I won't go any further than that.

      It really makes me sad that Martin's leaving (or trying to), but if he manages to accomplish some change on the way out (and I fully believe this is what he's trying to do - there are times when you've done absolutely everything you could do, and it's just time to say "okay, I've done my best, and it just isn't happening ... but let's see if I can finally accomplish something on my way out"), then DAMNED FUCKING RIGHT.
      • Well said.

        I left a dot com company because I couldn't put in the hours to the job and a girlfriend at the same time.

        I believe that as a result of leaving, they brought the hours per day down from 14-16 to a compulsory max of eight. Too late for me, but it helped my friends.

      • Agreed. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @02:34AM (#4757000) Homepage Journal
        If you're going to diss Joey, you'll get a big F**K You from me, too. The other folks involved aren't devils, they're just too busy and it's time for them to let go. I also work for SPI and have some idea what's going on there... which is not much.

        Bruce

  • An unsung free software hero (Score:5, Insightful)

    by intnsred ( 199771 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @10:41PM (#4756134)
    Martin, aka "Joey", is one of the many unsung free software heroes of SPI/Debian. Joey deals with everything from helping newbies to organizational tasks to technical issues in a way that few can do -- either because of a lack of time, patience, and/or skills.

    This is a case of someone dedicating huge amounts of time in the best traditions of free software -- something that few can do, either because of finances, other life pressures, or simply human limitations. This makes Joey an overachiever in the best sense of the word.

    The poster was right: this resignation spells trouble for free software. It's a sign of distress and it should cause some thought to be given to the issues of time/work and free software: Is there a better way we can encourage people to commit their time to free software projects? Is there a way we can give these hard working people who do all of the non-glamorous -- but necessary -- work behind the scenes the recogition they deserve?
    • you ask:

      Is there a better way we can encourage people to commit their time to free software projects? Is there a way we can give these hard working people who do all of the non-glamorous -- but necessary -- work behind the scenes the recogition they deserve?

      According to the article, this was the problem:
      Schulze asked Nils Lohner, president; Wichert Akkerman, secretary, and Ian Jackson of the B.O.D. to step down because he felt they weren't dedicating enough time and effort to their positions.

      Shit, even if true! More is better. When someone is not getting work done, throw more people at it. Devide the tasks, appoint new people, get the work done. The secretary missed a few meetings? Get two. The president is unable to make enough decisions, get another vice president. What good is done by humiliating people? What good is done when you quit? None. If there really are people rearing to go, sign them on.

      Sigh, I know, resources are finite and all that. Barf.

      • Shit, even if true! More is better. When someone is not getting work done, throw more people at it. Devide the tasks, appoint new people, get the work done. The secretary missed a few meetings? Get two.


        Hmm, Peter Cochrane posted an article on silcon.com recently going into the details of how much work a given number of people produce, 1 person does one persons work, 2 do 1.75 peoples work etc...

  • Not to be a troll but ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by emkman ( 467368 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @10:55PM (#4756214)
    Seriously, he is resigning because he thinks others aren't putting enough time in. One could assume that he was most likely putting a good amount of time in. Now he is resigning, accomplishling what? Even less time being put in.
    I understand what he is trying to do, but maybe its not the best of going about it, good luck to him though.
    • Seriously, he is resigning because he thinks others aren't putting enough time in. One could assume that he was most likely putting a good amount of time in. Now he is resigning, accomplishling what? Even less time being put in. I understand what he is trying to do, but maybe its not the best of going about it, good luck to him though.

      I wouldn't immediately label this as a troll, to be honest - at least, the question deserves to be asked ;)

      There are some internal problems with SPI (touched upon in the article), and if you really care about something, and try to make it better, there comes a point when you're just too frustrated and have to say, "well, this is it. I've done everything and anything I can - it's not getting any better. Let's see if, maybe, I can accomplish something on the way out..."

      (Now, if you are however suggesting that regardless of any personal hardships, he should do what we tell him, damnit, then yeah, I'd say you were a troll. :)

    • Seriously, he is resigning because he thinks others aren't putting enough time in. One could assume that he was most likely putting a good amount of time in. Now he is resigning, accomplishling what? Even less time being put in.

      Short term, yes. Long term, no. He's already got the President to resign. If he can embarass another one of them into resigning, then 3 of the 4 positions (including his own) can be filled with people who have far more time to dedicate to the meetings. Long term, that is only good for the organization. I think his efforts are already working. I'm impressed. I hope the other members are humiliated enough to step down.

  • News page dates from June 2001 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JM ( 18663 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @11:07PM (#4756261) Homepage
    Even worse, the latest news is from 1999...

    Concrete proof noone's putting in the efforts...

  • It doesn't concern me particularly.. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As much as I like gnome and openoffice, one of the great things about open source is the redundancy in projects. If I don't like gnome or the direction the project is going, I can just choose an alternative. Disarray at the top would be bad, but not disastrous.
  • Quitting to protest the lack of effort by others? I'll just do nothing to protest you doing less than perfection!

    I don't know the guy, but I'm sure he has his reasons. /. should make better summaries.
  • Once again proving that Time = Money...

    Sucks when the real world interupts a nice daydream...
  • "This must be some prestigious organization if a 19 year old is offering to serve on the board... " I'm 19 years old and am currently CEO of a fortune 500. Guess who I am, and you get a surprise. Respect is earned, not granted due to age.

  • Am I living in a hole? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by duncf ( 628065 )
    I am somewhat shocked as a Debian Developer, and a new SPI member that I hadn't heard of this earlier. I really think Joey ought to have made this a little more public than he did. A posting to debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org or even debian-devel@lists.debian.org would have been nice. Saves people like me from getting the news from /. -- not that that's a bad thing, but it's strange that /. and NewsForge managed to scoop a story before it was posted to a Debian mailing list. (Unless I missed something obvious...)

    Joey did send a mail, forwarded by Bdale Garbee to debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org that essentially stated:

    Some members of the current Board of Directors of Software in the Public Interest would like to expand its Board.

    In that e-mail he solicited nominations and suggested that candidates must have time to devote to the board.

    It is true, without a doubt that SPI, and its Board of Directors, have not done anything in the last year that makes me consider SPI to be anything other than a formality designed to collect money for Debian and other worthy causes. I think the SPI website [spi-inc.org] explains it best:

    News

    No items for this year.


    So, I applaud Joey's decision. Maybe someone will wake up and realise, SPI has a role to fulfill and it's not doing it right now.

    And maybe Joey will have even more time to write the Debian Weekly News, since nobody else is willing to do it :-)
  • For geeks of a certain age and background (myself included), the acronym "SPI" stood for Simulations Publications Inc., a fairly important wargame publisher whose prime was the 1980s. They concentrated on historical wargames, though I did once own their WWIII in Northern Europe game, The Next War, which was massive and retailed for $30-50 in 1980s money! They also had a D&D knockoff called DragonQuest, and a bi-monthly magazine, Strategy & Tactics, which included a complete wargame in every issue!

    IIRC (and if not, this being Slashdot, I'm sure someone will correct me), they were bought out by Avalon Hill, which in turn was bought out by TSR, which in turn was bought out by Wizards of the Coast, which in turn was bought out by Hasbro.

    Anyone who remembers the original SPI now has permission to feel very. very old...
  • "News


    No items for this year."


    Must more be said? They dont actually do anything... according to their website anyway. It seems they're just a source of funds for smaller entities that do something.

    • It seems they're just a source of funds for smaller entities that do something.

      Close. They're not so much a source of funds as a holding pen for funds, as well as for trademarks and other things that need some sort of legal entity to exist in the "real world" (the world of banks and tax collectors and whatnot). They're a non-profit, so donations to the member projects can be tax-deductable.

      Basically, SPI is the creation of the Debian project, to give themselves a legal existance. But instead of making it specific to Debian, they decided to create an open-ended organization that could provide similar services to other projects.

      And those other entities aren't smaller (except insofar as they're all part of SPI). No, SPI doesn't do much, but it doesn't really need to do much. Debian and Gnome mostly run themselves. But if SPI didn't exist, then we (and by "we," I mean Debian) would have had to invent them. Oh wait, we did! :)

  • Thank You Joey (Score:4, Informative)

    by cdlu ( 65838 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @04:02AM (#4757279) Homepage
    Martin "Joey" Schulze deserves our sincere gratitude for all the hard work he has put into Software in the Public Interest and all of its member projects as the organisations Vice President. As the Vice President he effectively ran SPI for months in the absence of the President and I have had opportunity to work with him since this summer in his capacity as vp of SPI. I can assure you all that he is a very dedicated and principled individual and he would not leave his post if he did not feel that it was in the best interests of SPI.

    Remember that being a board member of SPI is not a paid position. Not even an honourarium comes with the role. It is a serious time commitment and not everyone has the time necessary to commit to such endeavours.

    I'd like to point out that Joey has not resigned from SPI's board, but only as the Vice President. He has not indicated he will dedicate any less time to the project, nor has he given up on its success. He is offering the opportunity for someone else to carry the torch.

    For my part, I'd like to say:

    Joey, you're an asset to the community and I look forward to continuing to work with you. Thank you.

    David "cdlu" Graham
  • It sounds like a typical large american corporation. Total lack of leadership higher up. Those guys are too out of touch with what the organization is doing to have any real impact. Then, as often happens, the few people who really care get frustrated and leave - this happens at all levels. BTW, this tends to happen less at companies that promote from within, rather than import a management team from XYZ corp. I'd expect better from a non-corporate organization though.

  • Joey Schulze is stepping down as Vice-President, but that doesn't mean he is giving up his position as a member of the SPI Board of Directors. The bylaws do not require him to do so, and we have clarified this on the SPI Board mailing list today. To the relief of the active Board members, Joey's current intention does appear to be to remain on the Board. We'll need his energy and input.

    This article did do at least one good thing, in that it apparently prompted Ian Jackson to check his SPI Board email...

    Anyway, SPI is currently soliciting self-nominations for positions on the SPI Board of Directors [spi-inc.org]. If you're a member of the Free Software and/or Open Source Software communities, and find that you share the goals listed in SPI's bylaws [spi-inc.org] (see section two), you may want to submit yourself for consideration.

    Also, SPI can be strengthened with regular memberships [spi-inc.org] as well (yes, I know the SSL cert needs to be renewed). Historically, only SPI's Board has been particularly active, and sometimes not even that. If you'd like to change SPI for the better, we sure could use your help.

    Thanks for listening; I hope we can turn this disappointment into an opportunity for SPI to improve. We need your help to do it.

    Branden Robinson, SPI Treasurer

  • Will the last SPI board member standing please remember to transfer opensource.org to OSI [opensource.org]?
    -russ
  • There is no choice before us. Either we must Succeed in providing the
    rational coordination of impulses and guts, or for centuries civilization
    will sink into a mere welter of minor excitements. We must provide a
    Great Age or see the collapse of the upward striving of the human race.
    -- Alfred North Whitehead

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't panic.

Close