7 million reasons to consider democratising Drupal?
Update: I, chx locked the thread because of repeated pleas to stop and because I and many have been called a psychopant. This is just flaming and not constructive any more.
Hi Guys,
Congrats to Dries and Jay for landing the massive $7million dollars venture capital for developing their new company, Acquia. I've been down that VC and investment road before, so, I know how much energy and effort they must have put into getting that $7million. I wish them all the best. It's not only exciting times for Dries, it's also a huge nod of approval & respect to the Drupal community to have such serious Venture Capital companies willing to invest so much money in a Drupal start-up.
I think the Acquia initiative will bring a huge amount of value to Drupal & the Drupal community and in the same breath, I also think it's a perfect time raise the topic of Democratising Drupal to safeguard the project and ensure all those members of the Drupal community who have contributed, what VCs describe as, sweat equity to bring Drupal to where it is today, have some say in it's future.
As an example, I think it's great that there's a company out there with $7million dollars to spend on Drupal related activities, but, I also think it's important that there should be a gap between that and the Drupal project & community. In other words, when the VCs and investors who put the $7million dollars into Acquia start looking for their pound of flesh, it shouldn't really affect Drupal directly.
I'm not saying that's going to happen and Dries has indicated on his blog that it won't (see below) , I'm just suggesting that we discuss plans to ensure it doesn't.
Dries: Acquia is not going to fork or close-source Drupal. Acquia wants to see the Drupal community succeed and to do so, Acquia will listen to and work with the community to advance Drupal. The Drupal Association continues to operate the drupal.org domain, I continue to own the Drupal trademark, and the Drupal community continues to set the technical direction of the Drupal project. Drupal.com has not been sold.
They are very wise words and I think Dries, more than anyone as the founder of Drupal would not only agree that the Drupal Community really owns Drupal now, but, I think he would also support an initiative that would ensure that the Drupal community retains ownership & control of Drupal.
So, what I would suggest is kicking off a discussion about how we Democratise the Drupal project.
My suggestion would be to adopt a Co-operative style business model which is hugely succesfull and best described as:
an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise
The Drupal association is quite close to a co-op business model, the only thing missing is the members of the Drupal community, so perhaps it might be an idea to look at developing the Drupal co-op consitution from the existing association framework.
As an example, one of the first activities of a Drupal co-op might be to elect a new president of the Drupal association. Dries is currently the president, but, some might argue that there's a conflict of interest and that should change soon i.e. Dries is now tied into a shareholders agreement with the Venture Capital companies and essentially working for them now, helping them capitalise on their $7million investment.
Beyond the drafting up of a Drupal consitution and electing a new president, the co-op would also be in a position to raise finance, from the Drupal community in the form of shares (under the co-op model that's: 1 share per member and 1 vote per share), to pay the elected president (and board) of the association a salary along with an annual budget for marketing, promotion and other activities to implement a 1/2/3 year plan determined by the community.
A lot of the above is already in place, with the assocation, so what I'm suggesting isn't that drastic, it' s just taking it to the next level and legally establishing ownership of the Drupal project with the Drupal community.
As a by-the-way, I'm not suggesting raising $7million in share capital, under the co-op model, from the Drupal community - I don't think Drupal needs that much money to go to the next level. I think with a fraction of that $7m, you can empower and enable the Drupal community to bring Drupal to the next level. Donations can help keep things ticking over for a while, but, to really push it to the next level I think a Drupal co-operative can provide that framework.
Any opinions/thoughts?
Dub
Why?
There's a lot of 'What' in this post but it's lacking 'why'. Why make these changes, what would the community gain?
Adrian Simmons
adrinux@perlucida.com
quick one..
HI Adrinux,
It's something I've been thinking about for a while. Not just about Drupal, but, about all online communities, whether that's last.fm, facebook, myspace or others. in other words, if those projects looked to the community for funding, as opposed to outside investors, I think you wouldn't find situations like the recent Facebook "joe just bought an engagement ring" privacy debacle.
The VCs investing in Acquia aren't buying Drupal, they are investing in Dries' new start up company, but, I know for a fact that those press releases from the VC companies announcing the investment, will raise the eyebrows of every VC and investor around the globe.
So to answer your question "why?": Acquia is a great initiative, but, the business model isn't structured to include the community - it's a straightforward $7million dollar investment in a Drupal start-up. The shareholders own Acquia.
I'm suggesting we look at how we bring the Drupal project to a new level by including the Drupal community so the Drupal community is, more formally, in control and the community gains.
In simplistic terms, I would like to see MORE VCs investing in MORE Drupal startups. Without the comunity: Drupal is nothing. A stronger Drupal community with a more formal Drupal constitution will strengthen the community and help bring it to a new level. And more importantly, increase the attractiveness of more VCS investing in more Drupal startups
The VCs who have invested in Acquia would love to see the Drupal community thrive and develop...it increases the chances of them recouping on their initial $7million investment....the problem is how to structure funding and the business framework to include the community.
hence the suggestion of a Drupal Co-operative.
hope that makes sense...
Dub
"Acquia is a great
"Acquia is a great initiative, but, the business model isn't structured to include the community"
What is wrong with that?
---
themegarden.org
Drupal Hosting Article
..
hi themegarden,
What's wrong with it is that other VCs who maybe interested in investing in other Drupal start ups won't see it in a positive light.
In other words, consider if Acquia starts hiring core developers or more members of the board of directors from the Drupal association. They are perfectly entitled to do that, but, some might argue that it might be wiser for Acquia to donate the funds to the Drupal association and let the Drupal association administer those funds.
You know, in a similar way to the way google runs the summer of code programmes.
The google summer of code model fits with open source, because it allows yahoo, microsoft and anyone else to do the same. In other words, Yahoo or another rival company to google might not be too keen to pay for google employees to code.
If the Acquia shareholders genuinely want to see Drupal thrive and develop, they shouldn't have any problem with just donating the funds to the Drupal association to administer for Drupal development. Instead of signing contracts with them and making them acquia employees.
I.e. it's a closed shop approach, rather than an open one.
hope that answers your question
Dub
Er.
I disagree. The Drupal Association's structure explicitly prevents it from exerting pressure on the Drupal project participants to perform specific tasks or commit specific code. That's a protective measure to keep it focused on the tasks that are most needed, and most often fall through the cracks in a distributed project (server maintenance, trademark protection, etc). That focus, though, means that the Association is not an extremely efficient mechanism for getting specific code written, and that's specifically what Acquia and other Drupal businesses generally need.
Acquia has two primary interests, as I understand it. First, they have an interest in the ongoing success of the Drupal project as it currently stands. They and every other Drupal business thrive on the continued evolution of core and the rich ecosystem of projects built around it. They and every other Drupal business can support core and the ecosystem by donating time and code for the community's consideration. The bottleneck in the Drupal world at present is not money so much as time: for any given complex issue, there is a small list of people with the domain knowledge needed to properly review and vet patches and features. Throwing money to the Association will help keep the servers running, but it won't solve this problem.
Acquia's second interest (as I understand it) is the creation of specific Drupal-related tools for Enterprise-class sites and projects. There's a world of additional work that can always be done there, from polishing new database drivers to writing external management and monitoring tools that help Drupal but aren't directly part of the Drupal ecosystem. This kind of solution-assembly is the actual "Product" that Acquia can offer to its customers, and why VC funding has been given to Acquia. It's also the same kind of product that almost any Drupal-oriented business offers: building value-adds on top of Drupal's codebase, assembling combinations of existing code and modules, and delivering a finished, supported product to clients.
This second interest is a perfect example of the "Scratch Your Own Itch" engine that fuels a good Open Source project. Company A needs, say, a Python-based deployment tool for rolling out Drupal sites with specific profiles. Should they donate $50,000 to the Association, or some centralized body, and demand that the Association ensure the feature gets written? Nope. They should write it themselves or hire someone who's willing and able to. That's how a lot of new features for Drupal have been birthed: D5's installer and D6's internationalization capabilities are great examples. The CSS and JS aggregation features were written for clients of corporate Drupal sites, then proposed as patches for core.
This system works well. The community, the project lead (Dries), and the branch maintainers determine whether something makes sense for and works well with core and contrib. A lot of the heavy lifting, though, is done by specific parties who need specific features or need existing ones to work better. Commercial interests are always present, but they also balance each other.
While the approach discussed in the original post (treating the core project as a cooperatively owned business with share ownership) is interesting, I'm not sure how it would improve over the current approach. It seems that it would add many layers of complexity to the way the community operates and make it easier for a group with cash to blow to control the direction of the project.
It's worth noting that SoC is a promotional program Google runs once a year to promote open source in general. It's not Google's business.
--
Lullabot! | Eaton's blog | VotingAPI discussion
..
I'm amazed I actually have to point this out, but, while the acquia investors have brought $7million dollars to the table, the Drupal community has brought probably 100 times that in value, but, don't own any shares.
I'm suggesting that the only way you could possibly consolidate that sweat equity is to run with a co-operative based model.
As an example,
how pointless does that sound, when you consider that the leading core Drupal developer is now an employee of acquia?
I can think of 7 million reasons why that is a bad idea. In other words, I trust the Drupal community, but, I find it difficult to trust a venture capitalist who appeared very recently with $7 million dollars.
If that doesn't make any sense, I shudder to think what school of logic you guys went to.
Dub
point of fact
The core committer with the most commits is chx, and he still works for NowPublic (though maybe I missed a memo). I have long argued that we need a way to aggregate the needs and desires of a bunch of little guys -- individuals, nonprofit organizations, small businesses -- to help Drupal (and other free software projects) realize their potential: open source is simply more economical and efficient than closed source if we can get over the hump of coordination costs.
But Acquia is in no way a threat to that, it will instead ensure that a lot of companies with a lot of money are putting money into Drupal -- it will, as they say they would like to do, increase the Drupal universe by a factor of ten or more.
At the same time, while solving some of the limitations on Drupal's ability to meet the needs of very large organizations, Acquia and the whole new opportunities for Drupal that it represents doesn't offer any immediate solution to the coordination of many small players. I agree that tons more money could be flowing to Drupal development from below, as it were. But we don't need any changes in the Drupal association (not that some real, voting role for regular members wouldn't be a good idea on its own merits)– we just need to do it. Contact agaric if interested.
benjamin, Agaric Design Collective
core committer vs. core contributer
This is an important but small distinction:
core committer is someone with the ability to commit code to the core Drupal project. The people with these rights are Dries (Acquia), Natrak (?), and Steven Wittens (Bryght) across all branches of core. Gerhard Killesreiter (freelancer) is a committer for th 4.7.x branch. Neil Drumm (Advomatic) is a committer for the 5.x branch. Gabor Hojtsy (Acquia) is the committer for 6.x branch.
Core contributers are anyone who contributes a patch. Since, for example, Dries reviews way more code than he commits having core contributers are very important but it is not quite the same as "holding the keys" to commit rights. Both are important to determining the direction of the project, but committers have the ability to keep something out or force something in if they really want it. I think that informal community feedback to committers is the best way to guide them as opposed to some more formalized structure - it has proven itself effective in Drupal and other communities where the co-op model is relatively untested so far.
--
Knaddisons Denver Life | mmm Chipotle Log
Web 2.0 Investment
In Web 2.0, $7 Million is only .83% (< 1 %) of total investment 844 Millions for year 2006.
This is a relatively small amount as compare to total investment amount.
----
Darly
other models (and why)
I'd like to see other popular models in the open source world evaluated before we decide on one like you propose. I think that the benevolent-dictator-for-life model has worked really well for us so far and I see no reason to change it now. I guess I agree with adrinux - I don't feel any sort of real urgency or concern that this take place now.
There are things I'd like to see (like increased transparency in the Association) and the change to a co-op feels like a big change without much need.
fair point
Hi Greggles,
Thanks for chipping in.
My point is the benevolent-dictator-for-life is no longer here. Dries has setup a new Drupal start-up and raised $7million dollars investment in it, that's a lot of money and involves a shareholders agreement which is a legally binding document. Dries is tied to the Acquia shareholders agreement now and he'll be putting himself in an extraordinarily tricky situation if he makes or backs a decision about Drupal that is good for Drupal but hurts Acquia.
So while I agree with your point ("the benevolent-dictator-for-life model has worked really well for us so far") up to now...I can think of about 7million reasons why we should change it now.
In other words, instead of just applauding what Dries and Jay have done with Acquia...what we should be doing is looking at ways in we can increase the strength of the Drupal community, so we can bring Drupal to the next level and attract more VCs/investors to invest in more Drupal startups.
hence the suggestion of the Drupal co-operative. It's probably the only business model out there that fits.
Dub
other possible models
Well, maybe, but let's explore a little first.
Linux kernel, afaik, has the situation where core committers are employed by various organizations project lead is employed by a non-profit. I don't believe it is run as a cooperative.
Debian I think is very similar to Linux.
Joomla has the OpenSourceMatters board which appears to be similar to Drupal's Association except that the Joomla "core team" elects board members (the Drupal Association membership chooses future members). It appears that Joomla's leadership is more distributed (and much more formal!) and that there is no single big company that employs the major core committers.
Wordpress has the project lead and many key developers employed by the same for profit company that runs the software. So, this case seems the closest to the worst-case-scenario that you described of having key people and intellectual property all at the same organization. I don't know enough about the project to say whether it works well or not, but there is no denying that the project is popular.
Other projects with a meritocracy-BDFL model where the BDFL works at a for-profit include Canonical, PHP, and Python.
These are just examples that I knew or that seemed really relevant, but afaict none of them are cooperatives in the sense that you've described.
Are there any open source software projects that use the cooperative model that you are prescribing?
Thanks.
--
Knaddisons Denver Life | mmm Chipotle Log
a few quick comments
The Drupal Association has been preparing the expansion of the General Assembly during the last few months. There will be a call for candidacies for the Drupal Association General Assembly soon (probably already this week). Everyone can be a candidate to become a Permanent Member. The current General Assembly will vote, all candidates with a 2/3 majority will become Permanent Members. Once the new General Assembly has been established, a new Board of Directors will be chosen by the General Assembly among its members. This will allow everyone with good ideas of how to take Drupal to the next level to become involved as a Permanent Member or as a Director.
This is what the statutes of the Drupal Association were designed for. Changing or extending the statutes is within the powers of the General Assembly. Becoming a Permanent Member will enable you to take part in this process.
As mentioned before, the Board of Directors is chosen from the Members of the General Assembly by the members of the General Assembly. A new Board will be elected this year (or more likely, January 2008). However, the statutes provide a bi-annual term for the President, the Treasurer, and the Secretary in order to ensure continuous operations of the Board from one year to the next. Therefore, Dries' position within the Board is not open for election this year, but it will be so next year.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Dries Knapen
Treasurer
Drupal Association
giving the association an 'upgrade'.
Hi Dries,
many thanks for posting that.
I suppose what I'm essentially suggesting is 'upgrading' the association into a co-operative where there's an annual budget to promote Drupal, salaries for the appointed operations team, one-vote-per-shareholder and one-share-per-person. It's not much of a leap, but, I think it's worth suggesting when the board of directors meet in the new year.
With reference to the core thrust of my initial post..i.e. attracting more VCs to invest in more Drupal startups, my suggestion of electing a new president was because it might look better. In other words, some might perceive that Acquia have a significant advantage over other startups if one of their shareholders is president of the association, which is essentially a steering comittee.
That said, the ink is still drying on the Acquia shareholders agreement and I'm sure Dries B. has already thought of the potential conflicts of interest and has a plan for what to do in the new year.
Exciting times ahead..
Dub
Drupal Association
Very good response! For those that are more interested in what the Drupal Association is all about and how it is structured, check out:
Some of it is dry stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the proposals in this thread or future threads aren't already addressed via the Association's statutes.
-Bryan
CMSReport
Take some time!
I think there is no need for a quick reaction from the community to this development. Acquia can be a really good development, like Ubuntu in Linux universe. If not, the community can react later on.
Dries said:
It means here not Acquia owns it. And it is also said
I'm wondering what and how will Dries delegate on this topic to the community. I'm pretty sure he must delegate more as before, because of time and clarity. And I'm sure he will manage it.
Let's give him some more time, watch the developments and give feedbacks, like this discussion, and raise our concern when a conflict of interest has already happend.
Doka
re: trademark
Doka,
re: trademark.
This is just my opinion, but, I think the Drupal community should control and own the trademark and assets, such as the domain etc. In other words, the footer of Drupa.org would read "Drupal is a registered trademark of the Drupal co-op", rather than the property of Dries. So it is very clear that Drupal is community based and community owned.
That said, whether that's done via the Drupal association or via an 'upgraded' association, in the form of a co-operative as mentioned, should be decided by the community....which is the bigger picture discussion point I'm trying to raise, now that Dries is tied into a shareholders agreement with the venture capitalists who put in the $7million.
There are usually a flurry of NDA's (non disclosure agreements) signed alongside VC agreements like that, so Dries won't be able to go into any detail of what's included/excluded in the shareholders agreement, or what the exit strategies are.
That's not a reason to be scared. far from it. That's standard practice and the Acquia deal is a huge boost for anyone involved in Drupal.
Dub
Changes...
A lot has changed in the last few months. First, the birth of The Drupal Association, then the Acquia Announcement, and now this. And yet, from the end user's point of view, things are very much the same. You can still download Drupal, get modules, themes, patches, get support, just as before. I think, as long as this remains the same, there is nothing to worry about. That said, it's really too early to tell if things can continue smoothly under the current system.
I think it's best to let the dust settle before we make any more changes to things around here. Cautious optimism is the order of the day.
--
John Forsythe
Need reliable Drupal hosting?
Feedback
The Drupal project has never been a democracy -- it has always been a meritocracy and that's why people call me a benevolent dictator for life. Like it or not but that is what it is. I've acted in the best interest of the Drupal community for the past seven years of my life. When negotiating with the VCs, I’ve taken great pains to make sure that I'm able to continue to act for the best interests of the Drupal community. This was more important to me than anything else, and I hope that further proves my integrity. The proof continues to be in the actions, not in abstract theoretical political concepts ...
While the Drupal project itself is not a democracy, the Drupal Association is. In fact, the Drupal Association is a democracy for the reasons you outlined: to support and protect the Drupal project. I continue to entrust the Drupal Association with control over key assets like Drupal.org. And there is nothing that guarantees that I'll continue to be a board member of the Drupal Association; I have to be re-elected like everyone else has. I'm perfectly happy with that -- after all, I'm a co-founder of the Drupal Association and helped architect these democratic rules myself. In other words, let the Drupal Association do its job ... And if you want to change the way the Drupal Assocation works, you are welcome to join it!
PS: There are other Drupal Association board members that work for companies that took external funding. Plus, there are hundreds of users on Drupal.org who provide Drupal related services, some of which maintain critical contributed modules.
...
And there are those of us who make no money from Drupal at all. I am more then comfortable with the processes so far. I will add, the Linux leadership model hasn't changed either. If our model changes, then I would have to re-evaluate my involvement.
-Steven Peck
---------
Test site, always start with a test site.
Drupal Best Practices Guide -|- Black Mountain
I prefer your decisions over
I prefer your decisions over the decisions of a committee. There's a lot of truth in that despair.com poster that reads:
Meetings: None of us is as dumb as all of us
--
"I'm not concerned about all hell breaking loose, but that a PART of hell will break loose... it'll be much harder to detect." - George Carlin
--
Personal: http://www.nicklewis.org
Work: http://www.onnetworks.com
..
Hi Nick,
I think you're missing the point.
Dries is tied into a legally binding shareholders agreement with Venture capitalists to the tune of $7million. Even with the best intentions in the World, Dries could put himself in an extraordinarily tricky situation if he made a decision that was good for Drupal but not so good for Acquia.
Re: your reference to committee based decisions. I'm not suggesting forming a grandiose committee of millions. I'm suggesting granting ownership of Drupal to the Drupal community using the co-operative model as the framework.
So, as an example, a Drupal co-operative, which allows 1 vote per member, can engage a headhunter to recruit a talented, experienced person to lead Drupal activities. Which is not like the Vicar of Dibley setup, it's a setup that has worked amazingly well for over 100 years and with an estimated 800 million people worldwide. google the rochdale principles and you could almost search and replace with Drupal..i.e. the fundamentals are almost the exact same as the reasons people have joined the Drupal project.
I accept that it's possible for Dries to wear two hats. One with An Acquia logo and another with a Drupal logo, but, I think even the Acquia shareholders would insist that he does whatever is necessary to offload or reduce his Drupal activities to a minimum and just concentrate with the one, acquia hat.
I'm being devils advocate, but, I would prefer to see more VCs supporting more Drupal startups and the best way of doing that is securing and safeguarding Drupals future.
Hence the suggestion for a change in how things work. If we could xerox another Dries, there would be no discussion, but, we can't, so I'm suggesting we discuss how we deal with it.
Dub
...
No Dub, I don't think he is. I think you are. I have trusted Dries' leadership on this so far and his track record in my trust remains. There are a number of others whose leadership I would not trust as much. Decision by committee is historically a road to disaster. I will deal with this by trusting Dries to continue as he began.
You are being devils advocate which in this context of insinuation, edge cases, what if, I do not see as constructive.
-Steven Peck
---------
Test site, always start with a test site.
Drupal Best Practices Guide -|- Black Mountain
leadership
Sorry Steven, but, perhaps I'm not making myself clear.
NOBODY is doubting Dries' leadership abilities here. Least of all me.
That's not what is being discussed here.
I think the news about Acquia is great news for the Drupal community. I would like to see more VCs investing in more Drupal startups. The point is that Dries cannot possibly continue as he began
Being realistic and assuming there are only going to be 24 hours in each day next year...do you honestly believe the Acquia shareholders, who just invested $7million dollars, wouldn't mind in the least if Dries decided to do 3 days a week with drupal and 2 days a week with Acquia?
I would hazard that the acquia shareholders would support an initiative that would consolidate the Drupal project, allowing Dries to focus in on realising the profit they are expecting back from their $7million investment.
As an aside, I would argue that 3 days a week for a project the size of Drupal isn't enough. Juggling Drupal with his studies and other projects is one thing, but, ask anyone who has signed a shareholders agreement or being involved with discussions with VCs and they will tell you that the larger the investment, the tighter the shareholders agreements and exit clause get. That's before you get into non disclosure agreements and other such stuff that restricts Dries and Jay discussing what's going on.
If you think the discussion isn't consructive, fair enough. I respect your opinion. And sincere apologies.
Dub
I get that with investors
I get that with investors involved, Dries' role as project lead of drupal has become more complicated. But, you out of all people know how long it takes for the drupal community to make decisions like this. I don't disagree that the risks you mentioned are a possibility.
But the first evidence of Acquia's involvement that I've seen is Gabor being paid fulltime to get drupal 6 out the door. The bugs have started dropping like flies.
I just feel its way to early in the drupal communities relationship with acquia to immediately go on the defensive. Not to mention, its hard to rally people to defend against invisible threats that probably won't (but could) exist in future.
I promise, the investors believe its important that the drupal community remains happy (unless they've been infected by that earworm from star trek II -- in that case they're not to be trusted....).
Acquia's success is inextricably intertwined with drupal.org. Expect them to treat us like family.
--
"I'm not concerned about all hell breaking loose, but that a PART of hell will break loose... it'll be much harder to detect." - George Carlin
--
Personal: http://www.nicklewis.org
Work: http://www.onnetworks.com
Being realistic and assuming
Being realistic and assuming there are only going to be 24 hours in each day next year...do you honestly believe the Acquia shareholders, who just invested $7million dollars, wouldn't mind in the least if Dries decided to do 3 days a week with drupal and 2 days a week with Acquia?
Actually, yes. There are guarantees in my contract that enable me to spend enough time working on Drupal as the Drupal Project Lead. I'll check whether I'm allowed to publish the relevant schedule of my contract.
That is actually a vast improvement -- I've always been working on Drupal after hours in my spare time. I'll actually have more time to do what I've always been doing.
great to hear
Hi Dries,
That's great to hear. And congratulations again to yourself jay and the shareholders.
It would be very interesting to see those contracts if you are able to, most VCs I know would never allow someone to put 50% or 60% of their time into a project they are investing into, but, don't put yourself out....
I notice I'm the only one raising any sort of "hold on a second" opinion about how things are shaping up.
Dub
If Google's shareholders
If Google's shareholders empower their employees to spend 20% of their time on projects they're passionate about, albeit not open source ones, I think its realistic to assume Acquia's shareholders can do the same ...
Common interests
If it's in the VCs interest for Drupal to continue to develop and mature, they will do what they can to make that happen, it's solid business sense. If that means Dries spending time on Drupal's core development, then they can hardly say he's wasting his time.
There are precedents of private companies moving forward open source technology and increasing its commercial applications and viability... and there are even examples of open source founders/leads hired by companies to move their open source project forward. What's critical is that companies and the open source communities continue to state, create, and curate their common interests. And conversations like these are critical to making that happen.
To do that, however, it's important to look at interests rather than positions. You keep bringing up the co-operative model as the solution (and I'm not saying it's not a solution), but why don't we focus on the interests that model meets rather than arguing for or against the model? Rather than leaping to the idea that "democracy" is the solution, why don't we agree upon the problem?
As far as I can see the concerns you are bringing up include:
1. VC investment will lead to a conflict of interest in Drupal IP
2. VC investment will lead to a conflict of interests in Dries' time.
3. The Drupal community, the Drupal Association, and their corresponding legal backing, are not strong enough to maintain & negotiate the Drupal community's interests
4. The above 3 points also act as an obstacle to increased VC investment and/or commercial development
Is that more or less accurate?
So yes, we have to be very careful about the structures we build to house our intentions. However, this is true for both what Dries' et. al. are building for Acquia and for the co-op model you are arguing for.
p.s. I apologize if that was redundant, there are still 30 new posts in this thread I need to check out!
very well put.
There's no need to apologize, pcdonohue. your post is very well considered and imho very well put.
I too don't know if the co-op model is worth pursuing, the reason I think it might be good is that it fits with the democractic and organic way the community has developed Drupal.
The bullet points you highlight are not just the concerns I would have, they are precisely the same concerns ANY investor or company thinking of investing time/energy and money into Drupal would have..
And I imagine most investors/VCs would raise an eyebrow at the "$7million dollars for a startup" headline. $7 million dollars is an extraordinary amount of money for any startup in the IT industry and is usually associated with a pre-cursor to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) and suggests that there is some form of IP attached to the $7million dollars.
Beyond those obvious key points, I'm also concerned at the cultural impact on the community.
You can see the reaction from Michelle earlier who is accusing me of spreading FUD, being a liar etc. For anyone else stumbling across this thread, that presents an unpleasant and unhealthy picture....the complete opposite of the atmosphere when I joined almost 4 years ago. It suggests that there is something to hide, which puts Dries and Jay, in particular, in an awkward position - they will have probably signed watertight non-disclosure agreements attached to the shareholders agreement for the $7million, so they can't talk and discuss what's going on. It also completely detracts from the positive thrust of the thread, which is "lads, this is great news and it leads to all these opportunities....but..let's, think this through properly". Not all Drupal.org teamsters have the diplomatic skills of sepeck & michelle, but, it is remarkable how quick they were to leap to all sorts of conclusions.
On the democracy topic, Dries thinks Drupal isn't democratic, well, I would tend to disagree with that and also point out that there are already a lot of Drupal "shareholders" within the community.
There's no shareholders certificate, in the traditional sense, but there is an unwritten shareholders agreement that stipulates that "if you contribute to Drupal, you are helping to develop the Drupal ecosphere that you, in turn, can benefit from long term". That's the same, simply and fundamental principle behind ANY democracy. How those "share dividends" work is crystal clear and it has worked amazingly well to bring Drupal to where it's at today. The growth has been extraordinary since I joined.
So, while the bullet points you have raised are pretty much spot on, the cultural impact on the Drupal community is very worrying.
dub
And I imagine most
And I imagine most investors/VCs would raise an eyebrow at the "$7million dollars for a startup" headline. $7 million dollars is an extraordinary amount of money for any startup in the IT industry and is usually associated with a pre-cursor to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) and suggests that there is some form of IP attached to the $7million dollars.
I did not transfer any Drupal IP to Acquia. You continue to make false assumptions; please stick to the facts. The fact is that my heart is with the Drupal community and that I'm going to continue to work with the Drupal community to advance Drupal.
..
I never said you did transfer any IP to acquia.
Here's what I said: And I imagine most investors/VCs would raise an eyebrow at the "$7million dollars for a startup" headline. $7 million dollars is an extraordinary amount of money for any startup in the IT industry and is usually associated with a pre-cursor to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) and suggests that there is some form of IP attached to the $7million dollars.
Perhaps I could have phrased that better, but, as an example, here's a news article that was emailed to me earlier:
Acquia nets $7M in financing
Dec 19 2007 9:38AM EST
Acquia Inc. has netted $7 million in Series A financing from two local venture capital firms.
The North Andover, Mass., open source software developer secured funding lead by Waltham's North Bridge Venture Partners, with additional investment Boston's Sigma Partners and San Francisco-based O'Reilly AlphaTech Ventures.
The company plans to use the capital to develop software and services around its Drupal open source Web collaboration and publishing product. The product is delivers a variety of Web 2.0 applications.
full article on portfolio.com
===========================================
The embolden sentence in the second paragraph refers to Drupal as Acquia's product. For any VC or investor reading that, it's not difficult to draw a conclusion that connects the $7m with the Drupal product.
You see, it is difficult to stick to the facts when those facts are probably wrapped up in a shareholders agreement alongside some NDAs. Facts such as the Exit strategy for the investors, where do they plan to make the ROI? and other such facts that may/may not have an impact on the community.
Please don't take that the wrong way: I actually think there's a lot of positives in what's going on.
Some tricky questions need to be asked, but, in the same breath, we wouldn't need to ask those questions, if we had a framework in place that protects the Drupal IP and core assets. At the moment we don't have that framework.
If the Drupal IP is still floating out there and has zero connection with the $7million, I would have thought it would be a no-brainer to entrust that IP to the very community that helped bring Drupal to where it's at today.
However, just handing it over to the Drupal association isn't enough, imho, I would prefer to see the association upgraded to a co-op as outlined. And as an aside, a co-op is not an abstract theoretical political concept, Dries. That's a false assumption and here's 20 billion reasons why it isn't.
Dub
*sigh*
With respect, Dublin Drupaller, the article you quote is a press release. A press release. Press releases are not known for their exacting standards in accuracy.
Indeed, in the link you provide above (http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/local-news/boston/2007/12/19/acqui...), I see that the name of the company is misspelled in the title: "Acquie nets $7M in financing". The name of the company is misspelled in the path to the article. The last line of the press release reads "The product is delivers a variety of Web 2.0 applications.", which I am completely unable to parse.
Again, and I really just can't emphasize this enough: It's a press release. I'm pretty pleasantly surprised that Drupal is spelled correctly and that "open source" is mentioned.
You write:
For anyone reading that, IMO, it's not difficult to draw a conclusion that this is a press release and should not be taken as an authoritative source for ..., well..., anything.
Excuse me. I should have
Excuse me. I should have looked closer.
That wasn't even a press release, but instead, a short article about a press release, and presumably poorly derived from the actual press release at http://acquia.com/press-release-1. The actual press release does not attribute Drupal to anyone other than "The thousands of active contributors" who "have proven how a meritocracy can significantly advance the way the web is built".
Deep breaths
Dub, come on. You may be able to pore over your posts and claim that those specific words were never used, but anyone reading understood what you were suggesting.
You've been a member of the Drupal community for quite a while and have helped a lot of other people with your work in the forums and the handbooks. If you feel strongly that the Drupal community needs to consider these questions, please realize that your behavior and responses in this thread are alienating, insulting, and antagonizing many of the most active and dedicated members of that very community. Your behavior is cutting off the people whose support is most needed when sweeping changes must be made.
Your posts have been filled with slippery, innuendo-laden suggestions about what Dries, Acquia, and its investors might be doing or might do in the future. When Dries and others with direct knowledge of Acquia have replied with answers to your questions, you said they were either naive and being fooled by investors, or that they were contractually bound to hide the truth from you, and thus couldn't be trusted.
Many times throughout this thread you've hand-waved your way through suggestions of 'buy-outs' and corruption and takeovers. You've praised the wisdom of a vaguely defined "community" but accused the developer who make it up of being selfish and corrupt enough to sell the project out for "a 30 inch TV." You've stated explicitly that anyone who "controls" Dries "controls" Drupal, and told Dries that he was naive and/or lying when he explained otherwise. You've abused your privileges as a site administrator in ways that contradict the very communal values you're advocating and responded by accusing other admins of conspiring against you. You've called people I know, work with, and trust idiots and liars for having the temerity to disagree with you.
I'm beginning to wonder if answers will satisfy you. I'm beginning to wonder whether your questions are questions, or attempts to scare less knowledgeable members of the community into supporting your preferred system of administering the Drupal project. That is an ugly question to raise, and I don't want to, but it's becoming difficult to see it any other way. If your ideas and suggestions are sound, they will stand on their own without spreading dark rumors about individuals who have clearly demonstrated their dedication to the Drupal project. I'd encourage others reading this to review the past two days' worth of posts. Pay attention to the questions Dub raises, the information that others offer in response, and what he does with it.
There are serious and important questions that the Drupal community ought to grapple with. How should a GPL project be 'gardened' and 'tended' once it's advanced enough to attract commercial attention? In a project where 'getting things done' is the greatest currency of all, how can volunteers and hobbyists ensure their voices are heard as loudly as commercial companies who can pay developers to work on code they want? How can we determine whether a particular decision about Drupal is detrimental to the community, versus "just something some people disagree with?" How can we ensure that one company doesn't just hire up all the talented Drupal developers and 'hijack' the project be default? How do we view the problem of 'free riders' -- individuals and companies who benefit from the work that's gone into an open source project but do not contribute back? How do we recognize when and individual or a company is a free rider?
These questions are important ones, Dub. The community has been discussing them for years, and shouldn't stop just because Dries is part of the latest company. The thread you've started, though, isn't that discussion. It's a strange, context-free flameout full of accusations, innuendo, and ugliness. I've spent quite a bit of time over the past several days writing what I hope were reasonable, constructive responses to quite a few of your questions. I really hope that it hasn't been a waste of my time.
--
Lullabot! | Eaton's blog | VotingAPI discussion
serious and important questions that the Drupal community
I think the discussion is worthwhile but the issue is very complex.
----
Darly
wrong end of the stick
Hi Dries,
Thanks for taking the time to post. Appreciate you must be extremely busy with the new project.
There's no need to be defensive - I actually see the new developments as a very positive thing. I want to see more VCs investing in more Drupal startups.
However, I wouldn't dismiss suggestions on moving forward, in particular, the co-operative business model as an abstract theoretical political concept. 800 million people around the globe might disagree with you and point to 164 years of extraordinary success as proof it isn't an abstract theoretical political concept.
With respect, I would argue that Drupal has been built, not by any meritocracy, but, by an extraordinary community of people who volunteered and who were driven forward by the same basic underlying principles that the Rochdale Principles are based upon.
The Drupal association could be portrayed as a meritocracy, but, almost every organisation, whether it's public or private is a meritocracy, by default. At least, I cannot think of one situation where appointments aren't made out of ability or merit. Even the tailers son of a tailors son wouldn't be let near the scissors if he wasn't any good.
That's just my humble opinion.
To put it another way, instead of using the term meritocracy, I would use the term gardener.
In other words, Drupal is a seed that has been planted and it has grown, evolved, even cross-pollinated with plants next door. The growth has been spectacular, but, to assume or believe that any one individual or association is in control of the garden now is for me, very dangerous.
Yes, you can weed the garden and tend to the plants, but, ultimately, the garden will become overrun..it will outgrow it's surroundings and it's the gardeners responsibility to knock down walls, to open up a wider area for the garden to continue to grow unhindered.
Drupal is reaching that stage now. The pace of development is extraordinary and while there is a distinct risk those pesky property developers might start moving in and start building high-rise plaza's and drive-thru fast food joints and coffee shops in the garden to turn a profit, I actually see an opportunity to break down those walls or limitations and let Drupal loose as a community driven and community owned open source project.
That's the only way I can see Drupal moving to the next level. The Drupal association is a good start, but there are only a few (albeit extremely talented) general members. I think it needs to go a step further and safeguard Drupals future by granting ownership of Drupal to the Drupal community.
And the co-operative model is the only one I think will fit, because, the reason people get involved with Drupal are almost verbatim to the Rochdale Principles.
That's a lot more drawn out than I intended and I'm not disputing anyone's integrity here, Dries. You have been very open and honest about the moves to secure the trademark for Drupal and raise VC capital for Acquia.
So it's all very positive. And point taken about joining the association. I'll give it some thought.
By the way..congrats again to you, Jay and the shareholders. Acquia looks very exciting.
Dub
Ah, Dublin Drupaller, the
Ah, Dublin Drupaller, the devil is always in the details.
I read your post and thought 800 million people think this is a good idea! I'm all for it then.
I went in search of a source for that most troublesome of statistic -- the one without a citation -- and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative, which states:
Alas, the author of this Wikipedia article did not provide a citation or reference either. But still, 800 million people can't be wrong.
I read further, though, and discovered that Dr William King, who is credited by the author of this Wikipedia entry for creating one of the first "practical" examples of a cooperative, had a set of common sense -- indeed, "sensible" -- rules for its operation. Regular account audits sound very practical to me, as does vesting control in a group of trustees (not unlike, well, the current makeup of the Drupal Association, for instance). But barring cooperative meetings in bars to avoid the temptation of drinking profits?
'Tis there I say -- count me out. I'll take a meritocracy with an autocratic leader any day, especially if I can occasionally buy him a congratulatory beer to celebrate his first round of VC funding. :)
--ks
PS: Can you really not "think of one situation where appointments aren't made out of ability or merit. "
the co-operative movement
fair point about wikipedia, but don't shoot the messenger, try this link instead:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0...
In particular check out the Rochdale principles - they are almost verbatim to the principles why people joined the Drupal project.
Dub
Food for thought: Debian founder speaks on democracy
Some very relevant food for thought from the founder of the Debian project...
=====
HigherVisibility
political food for thought
Attempting to change from a system with true leaders to one that is more democratic will, I think, lead us down a bad path of to many cooks trying to make decisions in the kitchen. You need solid leadership to make decisions. There is a reason companies don't have boards make decisions about the day to day running operations of product developments. Decisions wouldn't get made, products would become stale, and people would become very frustrated. I think the same holds true for open source projects like drupal.
At this point our BDFL (Dries) has done a great job as leader and has taken great pains to be able to be as benevolent as possible. If he stops being so benevolent than we can talk. Otherwise I think if would greatly hurt the drupal community to make a change like this.
But, I am glad this conversation is happening. It shows some good risk management skills.
--
Matt
www.mattfarina.com
www.innovatingtomorrow.net
www.geeksandgod.com
bringing more money into Drupal
Another simpler way to stimulate investment into Drupal development might be to add a mechanism where, for each module, or aspect of core if core can be neatly divided into tasks, the administrator(s)/contributor(s) could list a price for the amount of hours of work estimated to complete a particular feature or revision, and payments could be accepted and then when enough payments are accumulated to reach the price, the admin/contributor would then be obligated to implement the feature in a given time frame and would receive the money or the money would go back to the contributors, or to the Drupal Assoc, or something like that. That way a lot of Drupal users who cannot afford by themselves to hire Drupal developer/consultants on their own could make targeted small donations and get what they need sooner than if this program were not in place. It would, admittedly, require some oversight... But if this could be made to work I believe it would spur opensource development tremendously. Is it being tried anywhere else?
Benevolent Dictator or Democracy
It's often feast or famine with dictators, isn't it? But it's usually not both with the same dictator. And when it's confined to technological development...well I think if a project goes south under someone's leadership for very long, then a new project will simply rise up to supersede it and that's the worst of it. It's not the end of the world. I'm really in favor of allowing brilliant people to do their thing as long as no one's rights are trampled on. We're not talking about running a country here. By all means continue to invest in making the most out of Drupal Association, but it's really hard to see what we have to be so worried about. We have more to gain than we might stand to lose by allowing Dries to continue to do his thing.
It would not be shocking if Drupal, as great as it is, or php, is superseded by another newer CMS or scripting solution in X number of years anyway. That seems to be the way of things. What you have now via open source license will continue to be available to you.
Rights or Privileges
What is a right and what is a privilege? I think it is a privilege to use drupal and all of this wonderful open sourced code. It is not my right to have it and continue to get it how I want. It is a privilege that we all have to share in each others coding efforts. I think we need to be careful not to demand certain things expecting that they are rights to have them. All of this is a privilege we should be grateful for.
--
Matt
www.mattfarina.com
www.innovatingtomorrow.net
www.geeksandgod.com
What about the work already done?
An investment pool for new Drupal development doesn't sound like a bad idea, but what about the work already done by the scores of contributors represented by the hundreds of contributed modules currently available? What are we in this new food chain?
I mean, I constantly get the same response from many of those who use my module, "I couldn't have done this project without it". And, I couldn't have created my module without the OG module. And the OG module wouldn't exist without Drupal and the community behind it.
So, when you start talking about fee based contributions, who isn't for that? But, if I can get paid for the same, if not less work, that I currently provide for free, which path should I choose?
In other words, if we waited to get paid, would many of the existing modules currently exist? I didn't (and don't) look to get paid for the modules I've created. I wanted to *contribute* what I had learned back to the community. They represent a lot of long, hard hours. Am I, and for that matter, any other contributor, going to be willing to continue this level of effort for free when others are getting funded for (in our minds, at least) similar or lesser efforts?
This is just something that popped into my head as I read this discussion. I'm wondering what the experience has been in other similar projects and what persons more learned than I in this have to say.
1 share = 1 vote =1 member
I agree, it's very difficult to work out how many hours a certain user spent testing a module, or approving a patch or providing feedback.
Which is why I suggested the simplicity of the co-operative model outlined earlier.
It's based upon the Rochdale principles...which are almost verbatim to the principles that gets people involved in Drupal.
I maybe wrong, perhaps the co-operative model isn't the best way forward...but, I do think that unless ownership of Drupal is clearly within the realm of the Drupal community, situations like the joomla/mambo thing from a few years ago will likely follow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joomla
I'm not saying that IS going to happen Drupal, but, what I am saying is that situations like that cannot happen under a co-operative framework. Developers can leave to fork their own project, under any framework, but, under the co-operative framework, major decisions like that can't be made by a select few, it has to be done with the consent of the majority.
So, for the Drupal community and for other Drupal startups seeking VC capital, it removes that air of uncertainty about the core Drupal project.
In other words, instead of a Weakness in the SWOT analysis...it's a strength.
Dub
Incorrect
The code is GPL. Anyone can fork it at any time, for any reason. Any sort of layer on top doesn't change that.
Are you agreeing with me?
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me Boris.
I said: Developers can leave to fork their own project, under any framework
The benefits of a co-operative model is that a mambo/joomla type situation, where a few core developers decide to pull mambo away from the community cannot happen because there's a legal framework (the co-operative model) that stops that happening. They can fork off anyway, on their own, anytime they want, but, they can't pull the core project away from the community.
So, in fact, the co-operative layer does change it. And that's precisely the reason I'm suggesting it.
Furthermore, look at it from a VCs point of view. i.e. A VC who may be looking at investing in a Drupal start up..
They might remark, during the SWOT slide in the presentation that there are 12 general members on the Drupal association including Dries as president and the pivotal IP (trademarks, domains etc.) are in Dries' possesion, not the associations and not the community.....followed quickly by the inevitable question about safeguards, mambo's and what if?
That's what VCs are paid to do. Ask those awkward questions. And I can guarantee you, there are not many succesfull VCs who would accept an answer along the lines of "awww, don't worry about it, dude. It'll never happen.".
now, before anyone jumps out of their pram - I'm not questioning anyone's integrity here - I'm just rummaging under the hood and raising a few questions a VC, who doesn't know Dries or hasn't been jumping in and helping out in small ways with Drupal for a few years, might throw at you.
Dub
I'm disagreeing
No one can pull the core project away from the community. But anyone can fork and do whatever they want. There are no locks, and no coop stuff is going to change that. The best code with the best community wins. If this current home starts failing people, they'll go elsewhere and take the code with them (and also leave it here). And may succeed or not. Again, nothing to do with coops.
So, let's ignore the code. It is malleable, can move wherever it wants due to its license, and is basically uncontrollable because of that license.
The trademark and the domain are in Dries' possession. Worth much? Not really. Anything really bad happens, the code moves off and a new site gets set up. That's called forking. Again, no coop layer is going to prevent any of that.
No offense, Dub, but this feels like wasted energy. Perhaps you didn't catch my other comment.
you're both right and wrong.
With respect, you're wrong, Boris, the 'ownership' of the core Drupal assets (trademarks, domains etc.) are in the possession of 1 individual, not the Drupal community, but you're also right, it probably is a waste of time trying to explain why it's good to trust the Drupal community.
Dub
...
The Linux 'core' assets are under the ownership of an individual (the model we discussed and chose) and you're right, it's really hurt Linux growth. Microsoft continues it's dominance and Apple will continue to supplant Linux as the second desktop operating system of choice relegating Linux to obscurity as a niche OS of occasional interest to a few hobbyists.
Your argument lacks logic
It starts with a fundamentally flawed assumption that Dries (and others) doesn't trust the community (and are not worthy of trust despite their track record of involvement, giving and time spent). That is false and insulting.
I am done with this conversation.
-Steven Peck
---------
Test site, always start with a test site.
Drupal Best Practices Guide -|- Black Mountain
LOL
Let me get this straight.
Instead of granting and entrusting ownership of Drupal's future to the very community that brought Drupal to where it's at today, a decision has been made to ignore that very same community.
And you're suggesting that anyone who dares to raise an "excuse me?" flag is false and insulting,basedon flawed assumptions??????
Well, I'm surprised at you Boris, I always had you down as someone with a bit of life in between your ears. How wrong was I? From where I'm sitting, the Drupal community built Drupal and it's the Drupal community that should own Drupal.
What you're suggesting is insulting to the entire Drupal community.
Dub
Instead of granting and
Instead of granting and entrusting ownership of Drupal's future to the very community that brought Drupal to where it's at today, a decision has been made to ignore that very same community.
I'm not ignoring the community. Quite the contrary -- I'm working with the community and the Drupal Association to advance Drupal. Drupal's ownership is not affected in any way.
..
Sorry...Dries, I still don't get it.
You keep saying how important the community is and how much it is in your heart, yet you continually refuse to answer a straight question:
If the community is so important to you, why don't you practice what you preach and transfer ownership of the core Drupal assets, to the Drupal community?
At the moment, it maybe true that Drupals ownership maybe not affected in any way, Dries. But, scroll down to read Eatons points about what happens when an investment doesn't work out and when the investors go after assets....
Dub
--
I can understand your trepidation with Acquia, Dub - specifically VCs (vulture capitalists) potentially wanting to get their hands on Drupal if or when the day comes they demand their 'pound of flesh'.
But I can also see where Dries is coming from too. As the creator of Drupal, Dries is its Geppetto. When most contributors have only been around for a few years at most, Dries has worked on Drupal from the beginning... and is still here. Who really is this community that Dries should give his creation to? Yes, sure 'the community" (individuals working in collaboration to scratch a shared itch) has helped build Drupal into what it is today. But most (and I fall into this category too) are just scratching itches. Dries on the other hand, I believe, has a greater affinity for Drupal than most.
So why should he seriously consider handing Drupal over to "the community" - and under the co-op model you propose, to hired execs who would never understand the love and dedication it takes to be the Geppetto of Drupal? They'll make decisions with their heads and not with their hearts.
In other words, I think Dries would do anything to see to it that Drupal succeeds and flourishes; I think that's why he created Acquia.
I'm not saying I don't share in your concerns about the motivations behind the VCs. They're investing to make money, period. But I think that Dries -- and even the contributors and the community -- can leverage 'the deal' so they too see prosperity and good fortune. And that will only happen if Dries and the community unites together to make Drupal the best CMS on the planet.
We can have cooperation without the co-op.
GPL.
What is this startup's business plan? Are they selling services to people who want to use Drupal? Are they building products on top of Drupal? Are they doing something of value for their customers?
If you're pitching an idea to a venture capitalist and your idea's success depends on who owns the drupal.org domain, they are going to be asking very serious and pointed questions about your plans, not Dries'. ;-)
You say, "questions about safeguards, mambo's and what ifs" but you haven't qualified what those questions actually are. What are they? What is the specific scenario you're concerned might become reality? I'm not attacking you or trying to shout you down, I just want to know what these actual questions are. After thinking a lot of stuff through, there are a couple of key possibilities that I can understand concern over:
These are all certainly concerns, but none of them are particularly new to the Drupal community or to the Open Source world. There are ways of dealing with them and -- most importantly -- the project is distributed under the terms of the GPL. There is nothing that Dries, Acquia, the Mambo foundation, Lullabot, or any person can do to take Drupal away from the community. The worst they can do is make things annoying enough that people fork and pursue different goals. We'd all like to prevent that, but it is the fundamental freedom inherent in the GPL that trumps all others.
I'm still unclear what the "It" in "It'll never happen" actually is in this scenario. Even if the worst happens and Dries grows an evil Bad Guy moustaches and starts committing horrible code that only works for Acquia, Drupal is GPL'd. They can't take away the working code that you have.
VCs are going to be asking pointed and awkward questions about whether you can deliver your product to customers, whether there's demand for it, whether you have the resources to support enough people to make it pay off in the long term, whether your competitors are better positioned, and so on. The 'what ifs' mentioned above don't impact those things.
--
Lullabot! | Eaton's blog | VotingAPI discussion
consider this..
Consider if Acquia wanted to improve Drupal 6.0 for example and wanted to pay, let's say Gabor for the sake of argument, probably the best Drupal programmer on the planet. They have a choice:
(a) sponsor Drupal development by donating the funds to the Drupal association.
(b) signing a contract with Gabor so he works full time with Acquia.
Now, forgive me for being dim, but, with a deadline looming and gabor being a full time employee of acquia, do you think gabor would concentrate on the features that would benefit the drupal community at large, or do you think he might concentrate on the features that would benefit the acquia plans?
In other words, if Gabor was engaged by the Drupal community to finish off Drupal 6.0 for example, he might prefer to implement code changes and patches that benefit the Drupal community at large.
That's the way a VC might see it. I.e. why invest in a Drupal startup when you can control all of Drupal (trademarks/logos/domains etc.) by investing in acquia?
Dub
Hypotheticals
Are you talking about creating a forked, patched version of Drupal 6 core? Adding features to it that can't be done in contrib, say? Because that's what Lullabot employees did in Drupal 4.7 -- the result was rolled into Drupal 5 as a core patch to add CSS aggregation and compression. That's what CivicSpace employees did in 4.x, and the result was rolled into Drupal 5 as a core patch to add a web based installer. That's what Bryght employees did in 5.0, and the results were rolled into Drupal 6 as a core patch to add OpenID authentication. That's what DevelopmentSeed did in 5.0, and the results were rolled into Drupal 6 as a core patch to add the new internationalization system. That's what... well. You get the idea. :-)
And as we've covered before, the Drupal Association is not set up to be a clearinghouse for development projects. You're basically saying that a company that needs particular functionality should donate money to keep drupal.org's servers running, instead of hiring a skilled developer to implement the features.
You're making three assumptions here. The first is that features that benefit a particular commercial entity do not benefit the community as a whole. History has proven that this assumption is a bad one -- see above for just a few examples. The second is that gabor (or any other developer) has to choose between "working a day job" and "doing things that benefit the community." Again, history has demonstrated that there is considerable overlap when one works at a Drupal shop and that forward-thinking companies recognize the value of giving their employees time to handle specific community responsibilities. The third and final assumption is that if gabor wasn't writing code for core, Drupal would fail. Again -- history has demonstrated that this isn't true. Developers have varying commitments and time constraints no matter what they're working on, and the ebb and flow of community involvement is part of open source.
I would say that this is an odd hypothetical, considering the fact that several branch maintainers in recent history have been employed by Drupal business with their own needs, deadlines, and priorities that were different than those of the 'community' as a whole. This has worked for quite a few years. The problems I see revolve around consolidation of expertise, lack of sound mentorship in little-understood corners of the APIs, and lack of architectural vision guiding many of the decisions that shape the codebase. These are serious concerns, but none of them have to do with what you're suggesting: that having core committers with day jobs is a bad thing.
Why does chx work on the menu system and formapi? Why do I work on formapi, votingapi, and a cloud of contrib modules? I'm not being paid by you, or the Drupal Association, or 'the community' as a whole. Why does Earl Miles write Views and Panels? He's being employed by Sony BMG Music Group, not the community. But he, and I, and chx, and every other developer working in the Drupal world, are part of the community.
Because a venture capitalist who thinks that's the way open source software and businesses built on it work would be an unwise VC. He or she would probably not have any money left to invest after losing his or her shirt in the first dotcom crash.
--
Lullabot! | Eaton's blog | VotingAPI discussion
thanks
Thanks for chipping in Caleb,
I actually came across that piece about Debian before ( If anyone is interested, there is a wealth of information at this site:)
http://www.opensourcestrategies.org/
But, after reading many articles on there and elsewhere, including the debian interview, I kept coming back to the co-operative model as the only one that will fit for Drupal. The flavour of democracy implemented by the debian project wasn't based upon the Rochdale principles, which is what the co-operative model is based upon.
I'm not going to try and explain on here what they are, if people are interested click through to the links which explain in simple terms what the co-op model is all about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_Principles
Dub
I was happy to hear about
I was happy to hear about acquia, first about the founding then about the financial basis. Happy, because those annoucements added something to drupal in every dimension in my opinion. But this discussion and some comments to the annoucements show that it has also the potential to scare people a bit. But thats also Ok.
Im not a community insider, more a close spectator. Drupal got a lot of recognition in the last year. Big companies started using it, a lot of services and companies grew around Drupal and made it stronger. I think, or maybe its better to say it feels that, this (acquia) is a healthy next step, that could NOT have been taken with more care and sensitivity to the community.
I look at Drupal as at a big ship (drop, water and acquia suggest this comparison :) ). I think this ship needs and has its captain ;-)
fork
So long as the source can "fork" then if the community or part of it are not comfortable a new project will arise. Happens all the time, civilization like rivers frequently find ways around blockage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)
This is starting to sound commie to me
This sounds like communism. I don't think the VCs would have even invested 7 mil If they felt like this communist bullshit would suddenly spring up. I know virtually nothing about drupal or how this is setup, but I can smell commie bullshit thousands of miles away. As long as ownership of stuff is clearly defined, and the VCs knew about this, then great. Private ownership ensures all calculations were done to best of ability.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."-- F.A. Hayek
commie?
Hi Jbesad...
Where did you get the commie bit?
Communism is (was) all about the distribution of wealth. The co-operative model allows members to keep the profits - which is why, it's been such a succesfull business model, particularly with community based projects.
The co-op funds and appoints a management team to run the project, while the members continue working on their individual enterprises, keeping all the profits.
Here's the fundamentals of the Rochdale principles:
1. Voluntary and open membership.
2. Democratic member control.
3. Member economic participation.
4. Autonomy and independence.
5. Education, training, and information.
6. Cooperation among cooperatives.
7. Concern for community.
That said, I think I'm alone in even suggesting that a new approach warrants discussion. There appears to be a resounding concensus to stick with the status quo.
Which is fine by me, but, I've seen too many open source and/or community based projects go the shape of pear when commerce-meets-community that I thought it worth bringing up.
Dub
Thanks for your comments Dub ...
discussion is always worthwhile, and shouldn't be perceived as criticism or 'disloyalty'.
Definitely
Thank you for raising these important questions. I think we need(ed) to talk about the recent development and the future of the community. Calling that "commie bullshit" is a totally unfair and ignorant remark. Yuck.
you're welcome
Thanks guys,
I was going to drop the discussion yesterday. I'm a big fan of drupalbut when I got up today, my inbox was full of emails from people who feel alienated and let down by developments. Many feel reluctant to speak their minds and be open about how they feel about what's going on. and they don't necessarily agree with what I'm suggesting.
So I appreciate the nod of support for the discussion.
I was beginning to feel I was the only one who has a concern or two about how things are panning out.
Dub
Questions.
Why should the Drupal project be run as a business?
--
Lullabot! | Eaton's blog | VotingAPI discussion
..
I think it should be run as a co-operative business, because it means the community, as opposed to a group of investors/shareholders/Venture capitalists own the project.
The main reason is that it's the community that has built Drupal and therefore the community should own Drupal. Not any individual, not any investors or not any venture capitalists. The community owns Drupal. And that community should profit from Drupal. Otherwise the rochdale principles fall apart at the seams and the project suffers as a result.
That's just my opinion, Eaton,
Dub
...
You are saying that despite seven years of balanced leadership already run by community contributions that suddenly Dries changed. Years in which people were able to contribute code to Drupal core is suddenly going to change. Years in which there was an additional role of a branch maintainer added to the release system is going to stop. Years in which Dries balanced work, school and made no money at all, he is now unworthy of the communities trust to continue to lead the project as it has been lead for seven years.
Your initial initial unstated premise.
Doesn't Linus Torvald still decides what code is committed into the kernel branch and own the trademark? Doesn't Linux still seems to be working along. Linux itself seems to be doing well enough despite venture capitalists providing money so that developers can support themselves and their families.
Your unstated premise is that you cannot trust Dries. I disagree with your initial premise that Dries cannot be trusted. I reject your premise.
I rejoice that Dries has achieved the potential for a stable income that will allow him relief from the concern of seeking shelter, clothing, and food and gives us, the active community and the lurkers alike more benefit from his continued stewardship.
Drupal is already run by active contributions from the community, insinuations otherwise are destructive. This ends my participation in this thread.
-Steven Peck
---------
Test site, always start with a test site.
Drupal Best Practices Guide -|- Black Mountain
Sepeck, this is the second
Sepeck, this is the second time you've declared you are "done with the conversation"! I'm not quite sure why you think Dub is criticizing Dries - I really don't think he is. Let's try and keep the tone of this conversation friendly, for goodness sake. :)
leap of faith
hi Steven,
I have never said I don't trust Dries.
The salient point is people didn't get involved with Drupal because of Dries' leadership, the majority don't even know Dries. The reason people got involved with Drupal is because of the Rochdale Principles which are the basic fundamentals that are behind the success of open source projects for over 100 years.
i.e. Scratching an itch.
to dress it up in any other way is dangerous imho. beside