After consultation, please find the answers to your questions below:
Topic 1: How was current Joomla Leadership (s)elected? What are their roles? Are there term limits? If so, when do current leaders' terms end?
The current Joomla Leadership Teams are made up for the Leadership Teams of our two Workgroups: Community Leadership Team and the Production Leadership Team. The current structure has been setup to allow for flexibility as individuals come and go. There are no set terms, and the roles of individuals are determined by the respective Working Group. ie I am on the Community Leadership Team, but that doesn't give me a role in the Production Leadership Team. This announcement is a good point of reference: http://www.joomla.org/announcements/gen ... rship.html
There are no term limits. The leadership teams are designed to consist of people who are actually leading at a given time and for those people who stop leading to easily step down.
As stated in the By Laws members of the OSM board usually have two year terms unless they come in off cycle, in which case the term is shorter. They are currently elected by the Community Oversight Committee.
How strictly do OSM & Joomla Leadership adhere to the bylaws posted here: http://www.opensourcematters.org/policies/by-laws.html
Are the bylaws in the process of being changed to grant OSM wider responsibility?
OSM is legally bound to follows its by laws at all times, and it does. There have actually been a few other changes or clarifications of language over the years. Recently, as part of reorganization, the option was added to allow community members on board committees and that important documents would be posted on the OSM site. Also, the COC amended Article IV to allow the board of OSM to still function in the event the Community Oversight Committee (originally made up of the Joomla Core Team) for whatever reason failed to elect members to the OSM board.
Topic 3: What about the culture of the current Joomla Leadership enables quietly changing the historical record? This is specifically in reference to the organizational diagram posted for several months--then removed--then added back--then removed again--then replaced--then removed again. This is also in reference to a particularly provincial blog post chastising JoomlaTools when they blogged about what they deemed a security threat that they had found in Joomla -- this blog too is now terribly difficult to find.
The historical record was not changed, a single inaccurate image was removed from an announcement. In hindsight changing that diagram was a mistake. Looking back, as soon as the problem was noticed (which was the day the announcement was published) it would have been better to put a note that said "Update: This diagram was included in error and does not reflect the structure described in the announcement. Please disregard it." The diagram was created by Amy Stephen in the course of a discussion of the reorganization with working group members before the reorganization was announced to the public. It was never an official image of any kind, but just represented Amy's thinking about how the project should be organized. It was fine for her to present her views, there was nothing at all wrong with that. Unfortunately, someone wanted a second graphic for the article and just put that one in without actually looking at it closely or reading the surrounding forum thread. We made a mess of this, there's not really any other way to put it.
Regarding the blog posts you make reference to, they were removed from both sites after the authors of the two posts mutually agreed to unpublish them.
Topic 4: Why wasn't the decision to pay developers discussed with all stakeholders in the Joomla project? I would consider the community a stakeholder in the Joomla project -- so why was the community informed after the fact instead of involved in the decision (perhaps by a blog post requesting input on the subject, or even just a simple poll)?
The idea of paying people to work on the project has been widely discussed thoroughout the community for the last several years, including at most Joomla Days, on the development mailing lists, and in forums as well as blogs out side of the joomla.org sites. The core team formally asked OSM to develop a plan to move forward with this in January of 2009, and proceeding with caution, OSM has done so on an experimental basis.
OSM and the COC are sensitive to the fact that there are strong views both for and against, ranging from philosophical or ideological values through to the purely practical. To suggest that it is an easy question to wrestle with is naive as there is no "right" answer. We are also sensitive to the fact that we have an enormous social responsibility to users of many tens of millions of Web sites and that, at some point, relying on irregular volunteer time cannot meet *all* the needs of the project in a sustainable way. 2009 has been a fairly stressful year involving the loss of many very experienced volunteers from leadership within the project, particularly in the area of core development, the most fundamental area of any software project. Several months ago we reached a crisis point in production where the risk of 1.6 not happening became untenably high despite the constant calls for experienced help over the course of 2009. In our view, we had to act when we did because repeated calls for help to the experienced developer community were not yeilding the results the project needed to put Joomla 1.6 on track. The point is to retain and attract highly experienced developers who are able to do the work that is needed and makes it possible leaving the "fun" and "interesting" work to volunteers and doing so in a manner that allows the project to retain control over development rather than hand it over to external companies.
There is really no reliable mechanism for taking the community temperature on issues like these. However, from comments we have received and from the monitoring of third-party polls and comment, there is broad support for paying people to perform various duties within the project. We see this as one egg in a basket of many options that should be employed in order to support sustainable, long-term development of software of the standard that we are used to in the Joomla project. This can include individual volunteers. It can include companies donating staff time. But it should also include the ability for the project to engage it's own staff specifically to meet the interests of the project - not just what individuals or companies are interested in. Given the instability we have experienced over the last year or so just in the financial sector, it's prudent for the project to be looking to distributed input mechanisms.
We're glad Louis and Andrew were able to get to work for a couple of months without distraction and that now we will be able to take feedback on what actually happened as opposed to speculation about what might happen. Some important questions for feed back that we will ask are:
- What has been the impact of the presence of some paid development on you personally?
- Has your level of contribution to the Joomla! project (code, forum posts, organizing events, organizing a JUG) changed in the past few months? If so, how?
- Has your ability to get advice, feedback or mentoring on development issues changed? If so, how?
- Has your attitude towards people being paid changed? If so, how?
- Do you think you should be paid for the work you are doing for the Joomla project? Why?
- Do you think there are other specific individuals who would have been more appropriate for OSM to contract with? If so, who and why?
- Do you think the pace or quality of Joomla development has changed since this was implemented? For better or worse? In either case, how?
- Would any of these answers differ for the period in which you knew they were getting paid versus the period when you did not? If so, why?
People should be thinking about the answers to these questions now so that they are ready to give feedback in mid January.
I don't want to overwhelm with too many topics at once.
I think you did fine.
I'm going to remove the previous replies to this thread out of respect to the original thread starter.