Open governance in open source and how Node.js implements it

1. March 30, 2016
New Models in Open Source
Rod Vagg
@rvagg

2. © 2016 NodeSource
Who am I?
2
Who am I?
• Recovering Former Java developer
• Current Node.js developer and cat herder
• Chief Node Officer @ NodeSource, Inc.
• Member of the Node.js TSC & CTC
• Open software governance aficionado

3. © 2016 NodeSource
Wut?
3
What this talk is about
• What does the next generation of open source look like?
• Trends toward greater openness
• The Node.js journey; openness in the ecosystem
influencing a new open governance model in core
• The role of leadership
• Challenges for companies

4. © 2016 NodeSource
Story time: NAN
4

5. © 2016 NodeSource
Story time: NAN
5

6. © 2016 NodeSource
Story time: NAN
6

7. © 2016 NodeSource
Story time: NAN
7
42 months of progress
• From 287 LOC (1 file) to 6,148 LOC (17 files)
• From supporting Node.js 0.10 and 0.11 to supporting 0.8, 0.10, 0.12 (io.js 1, 2, 3), 4, 5, 6
• Depended on by every major C++ Node.js addon, 95th most downloaded package in npm
• Successfully navigated a major rewrite (v2)
• Adopted by Node.js core as the official solution for writing compatible C++ addons

8. © 2016 NodeSource
Open Governance
8

9. © 2016 NodeSource
Open source history
9
Open source history can be
defined by its tools

10. © 2016 NodeSource
Open source history
10
SCM tools
CVS
Subversion
Git

11. © 2016 NodeSource
Open source history
11
Source code hosting, sharing & “social”
Wild West / self-hosted
SourceForge (and Freshmeat?)
GitHub

12. © 2016 NodeSource
CVS
SVN
Git
Self-hosted
SourceForge
GitHub
Open source history
12
Trend
Reduced collaboration friction
Focus on community / social
Openness and visibility

13. © 2016 NodeSource
Open source history
13
CVS
SVN
Git
What’s next?
Self-hosted
SourceForge
GitHub
What’s next?

14. © 2016 NodeSource
Open source history
14
With a trend toward reduced friction, increased
community and greater openness,
the future of open source looks more like a wiki

15. © 2016 NodeSource
“OPEN Open Source”
An example open governance model
15

16. © 2016 NodeSource
OPEN Open Source
16
“Individuals making significant and valuable
contributions are given commit-access to a
project to contribute as they see fit. A project is
more like an open wiki than a standard guarded
open source project.”
http://openopensource.org/

17. © 2016 NodeSource
OPEN Open Source
17
Basic guidelines
• Don’t mess with Git history (master is sacred)
• Internal pull requests to solicit feedback are preferred,
particularly for non-trivial changes
• Consensus-seeking for everything
• New contributors get equal ownership and a seat at the
decision-making table
• No BDFL (“benevolent dictator for life”); respect and moral
authority are earned

18. © 2016 NodeSource
Open Governance in Practice
18

19. © 2016 NodeSource
Open governance in practice
19
Impact: projects better reflect their users
Projects are driven by the people and groups that value them
the most
Those who put in the most resources (companies and
individuals) get influence: encourages participation

20. © 2016 NodeSource
Open governance in practice
20
Impact: better bus-factor & sanity for
developers
The individual drivers of a project can change smoothly over
time
Key individuals can move on when they run out of steam
New individuals join and earn influence
Group dynamics adapt according to the make-up of the group
at any point in time

21. © 2016 NodeSource
Open governance in practice
21
Impact: vision & roadmap become nebulous
A project’s “vision” or “roadmap” exists as the intersecting
interests and desires of those most willing and able to invest
in the project at any point in time

22. © 2016 NodeSource
Open governance in practice
22
Impact: restraint by consensus-seeking
The need to work toward consensus:
• Forces restraint, compromise and stability
• Increases the scope of discussion to include diverse user
perspectives
• Provides a key touch-point for community building

23. © 2016 NodeSource
Open governance in practice
23
Impact: focus on key areas by consensus-
seeking
The need to work toward consensus:
• Forces discussion of what really matters
• Highlights the areas of difference
• Encourages dialog with the other

24. © 2016 NodeSource
Open governance in practice
24
Impact: openness
Openness begets openness
• More welcoming of new contributors
• More embracing of a diversity of perspectives
• Focus on discussion and consensus-seeking rather than
dictates and imposition

25. © 2016 NodeSource
The Node.js Journey
25

26. © 2016 NodeSource
The Node.js journey
26
v0.10 represented a high-water mark for Node.js
• Contributions peaked
• Engagement peaked
• Release frequency peaked
• Downloads peaked
• v1 was near!

27. © 2016 NodeSource
The Node.js journey
27
Toward stagnation instead of v1
• BDFL model began to be a hinderance
• Project stewardship under a single company limited
avenues for contribution and skewed incentives
• Lack of technical progress
• Lack of communication and transparency around decision
making

28. © 2016 NodeSource
Node.js in contrast to its ecosystem
28
# of packages
http://modulecounts.com/
# of downloads
https://twitter.com/seldo

29. © 2016 NodeSource
A desire for openness
29
A growing desire for openness
Large sectors of the Node.js open source ecosystem were
transitioning to greater openness and exploring new open
governance models
Node.js core was frustratingly closed in comparison

30. © 2016 NodeSource
Node.js: v0.10 to v0.12
30
Commitspermonth
0
100
200
300
400
Releasespermonth
0
3
6
9
12
Uniquecommiters
permonth
0
23
46
69
92
Mar 2013 Jun 2013 Sep 2013 Dec 2013 Mar 2014 Jun 2014 Sep 2014 Dec 2014 Mar 2015 Jun 2015 Sep 2015 Dec 2015
Node.js
v0.10.0
Node.js
v0.12.0

31. © 2016 NodeSource
Node.js: v0.10 and beyond
31
Commitspermonth
0
100
200
300
400
Releasespermonth
0
3
6
9
12
Uniquecommiters
permonth
0
23
46
69
92
Mar 2013 Jun 2013 Sep 2013 Dec 2013 Mar 2014 Jun 2014 Sep 2014 Dec 2014 Mar 2015 Jun 2015 Sep 2015 Dec 2015
Fork
io.js
Convergence
Node.js Foundation
Node.js
v4.0.0
Node.js
v0.10.0
Node.js
v0.12.0

32. © 2016 NodeSource
Open Governance and Node.js
32

33. © 2016 NodeSource
Outcomes: open governance
33
Open Governance
• Managed by 61 “Collaborators” (18 Core Technical Team
“CTC” members)
• 9 individuals authorised to publish releases
• Contributors control and own the project
• No single point of failure
• Diversity of perspectives, backgrounds and expertise

34. © 2016 NodeSource
Outcomes: open governance (the Node.js team)
34
Ben Noordhuis Сковорода Никита Андреевич Chris Dickinson Colin Ihrig Evan Lucas Jeremiah Senkpiel Fedor Indutny James M Snell Michael Dawson
Julien Gilli Brian White Ali Ijaz Sheikh Alexis Campailla Bert Belder Rod Vagg Shigeki Ohtsu Trevor Norris Rich Trott
Andreas Madsen Benjamin Gruenbaum Brendan Ashworth Calvin Metcalf Claudio Rodriguez Domenic Denicola Wyatt Preul Rebecca Turner Isaac Z. Schlueter
Johan Bergström João Reis Julian Duque Minwoo Jung Aleksey Smolenchuk Matthew Loring Matteo Collina Nicu Micleușanu Mikeal Rogers
Christopher Monsanto Oleg Elifantiev Petka Antonov Phillip Johnsen Stephen Belanger Alex Kocharin Ryan Graham Robert Kowalski Roman Klauke
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé Sam Roberts Nikolai Vavilov Roman Reiss Steven R Loomis Michaël Zasso Christian Tellnes Myles Borins Sakthipriyan Vairamani
Glen Keane Thorsten Lorenz Mike Tunnicliffe Vladimir Kurchatkin Jeremy Whitlock Yosuke Furukawa Kat Marchán

35. © 2016 NodeSource
Open governance & Node.js
35
Node.js uses a variant of OPEN Open Source
• Two-tiered governance structure for making difficult
decisions
• CTC as a backstop, Collaborators for everything else

36. © 2016 NodeSource
Open governance & Node.js
36
Node.js CTC (Core Technical Committee)
• Has a ¼ company membership rule
• Meets weekly to address concerns that have been elevated
to it on GitHub
• Often pushes decisions back to Collaborators
• Is self-selecting
- Seeks diversity in perspective, skill and background
- Recognises technical and organisational merit

37. © 2016 NodeSource
Open governance & Node.js
37
Node.js Collaborators
• Are effectively self-selecting—nominate new members
based on contribution
• Operate primarily via pull request and discussion, require
minimum sign-off but allow maximum input
• Must recognise objections and concerns and work in a
consensus-seeking process, no railroading!
• Organically form interest and expertise groups
• Earn respect and deference from other Collaborators for
different aspects of the project (crypto, C++, V8, Windows,
debugging, build, testing, documentation, even grammar!)

38. © 2016 NodeSource
Open governance & Node.js
38
Node.js is self-sustaining
• Better bus-factor than most: in terms of individuals and
corporate involvement
• Relationships and people-structures are dynamic and
adjust over time
- People move on when their passion and interests fade
- New people join as they see needs and ways to make an
impact
Natural community structures and evolution are harnessed for
the long-term health of the project

39. © 2016 NodeSource
Open governance & Node.js
39
Node.js has guard rails
• Collaborators answer to the CTC
• CTC reports to the TSC (Technical Steering Committee)
which acts as an administrative facilitator
• TSC reports to the Node.js Foundation Board, although it
has independence on the technical process
• Node.js Foundation Board answers to member companies

40. © 2016 NodeSource
The importance of leadership
40

41. © 2016 NodeSource
Leadership
41
The importance of leadership is
directly proportional to the size
and complexity of a project

42. © 2016 NodeSource
Leadership
42
Leadership is important
• Imposed leadership structures expose a project directly to
the absolute best and absolute worst of a leader
• A collaborative process rewards, encourages and capitalises
on great leadership
• A collaborative process can guard against not so great
leadership
• Quality leadership is rare but easily recognised

43. © 2016 NodeSource
Leadership
43
Earned leadership > imposed leadership

44. © 2016 NodeSource
Challenges for companies
44
Challenges for companies engaging in open
source
• How do you buy in to existing projects? Play a long-game of
influence building, buy existing talent?
• Asserting strong influence over roadmaps and requirements
becomes increasingly difficult
• Finding audience for new projects becomes difficult
without embracing openness
• The need for exercise of soft power is only increasing:
leadership

45. Thank you.
Rod Vagg
rvagg@nodesource.com
@rvagg