Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizational

This board is for discussions about joomla.org blog posts.
Forum rules
Global Rules
User avatar
zanderp
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:32 pm
Location: Weesp, NL
Contact:

Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizational

Postby zanderp » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:05 pm

Forum thread to discuss the blog post "Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizational Structure and Methodology": http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leade ... ology.html

User avatar
worshipper
Joomla! Apprentice
Joomla! Apprentice
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:19 am
Location: Kirchberg
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby worshipper » Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:57 pm

Thx Sander for sharing, did you know, when the translations are available?
I hope before the community-disquss is closed :)
Joomla! News, Tipps and Video-Tuts in German
http://www.joomlainfo.ch

User avatar
MarijkeS
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:13 am
Location: Enschede, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby MarijkeS » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:20 pm

Hi Worshipper,

There have been many requests for translations lately. We have created a document for translators, and asked of them to translate the introduction. The document can be found here for anyone who wants to help translate:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DFj ... sp=sharing

Hopefully we will see translations coming in soon.

Thanks for everyone in advance for your help.
Coordinator Translationteam JoomlaCommunity.eu | Member Dutch Translation Team - http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/nederlands/l
Joomla! Translation Coordination Team

jgress-
Joomla! Guru
Joomla! Guru
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:40 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby jgress- » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:57 pm

hi!

question: in section 3.2.1.4 the JUG Team is placed in the Events department. wouldn't it make more sense to be in the Local Communities department?

i reckon this is one of those fine lines...

:) jenn
Co-author Using Joomla, Second Edition (migration/upgrade included) http://www.usingjoomlabook.com
Find a Joomla User Group (JUG) near you http://community.joomla.org/user-groups.html

User avatar
mbabker
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: White Bear Lake, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby mbabker » Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:50 am

Based on my review of the presented document, below are my questions and comments:

  • It is mentioned several times how this new structure will define a roadmap or long term goals for the project. This has happened in the past, especially from the existing PLT with regards to a roadmap for the software produced under the Joomla banner. How will this structure better establish, and follow through, on these planning documents versus today’s structure?
  • It is stated in the document and by long-standing community members that OSM was purposefully created to be a “weak” organization. I see this “weak” structure as having a very narrowly defined purpose and mission to which OSM has been performing this purpose successfully. Why is there a feeling that the OSM organization must grow to consume the Joomla project’s daily operations?
  • In line with the previous thought, should Open Source Matters become the supporting organization for another brand or project, as has been suggested with regards to the Joomla! Framework, how does this structure enable both brands or projects to function simultaneously? Does this structure imply then that all projects supported by Open Source Matters would fall under the same leadership teams and organizational structure?
  • It is stated several times in Section 2 that as one organization, there will be more cohesiveness and teamwork with less individual efforts or silos. What assurances do we have that this will actually happen?
  • How is the Advisory Board selected? Are there terms for members of the Advisory Board? What qualifications are required to be selected to this role?
  • How is the Ombudsman structure organized? Is this a role for a single individual or is this a team?
  • Is there any oversight over these external teams, and if so, what?
  • The Ombudsman structure notes a Conflict of Interest regulation. Is this in draft form for review?
  • A failure with Joomla’s existing structure and marketing is the disconnected look and feel of the joomla.org network of sites. This is carried forward by way of the Operations Department which lists a separate team for nearly every subdomain on the network. Is there any oversight being placed on the management of the Joomla web presence in this new structure or is the network going to continue to represent 25+ wholly disconnected websites?
  • Is there a cap on the number of “elected” Team Members?
  • The complaint procedure notes that complaints about a Team Contributor or Team Member are to be taken to “superiors” in the leadership structure. However, complaints about a Team Leader, Department Coordinator, or Officer are taken to levels below those individuals in the structure. Why should all complaints not be taken either to a “superior” or “parallel” team member or only the Ombudsman?
  • The proposal in effect makes all contributors to Joomla members of Open Source Matters, Inc. What, if any, legal ramifications does this impose on who may contribute to the project?
  • Part of the proposal’s foundation is that a revised structure increases transparency and accountability project wide? What mechanisms are in place to ensure this is actually followed through on and to ensure that the new structure does not result in similar issues that we experience today?
  • Will there be exemptions with regards to the transparency “required” from all teams? For example. should the Security Strike Team hold regular meetings where active security concerns are addressed, to what detail would the team be required to disclose the text of their discussion?
  • The mission of Joomla and Open Source Matters "is to provide a flexible platform for digital publishing and collaboration”. This implies a priority should be placed on the development of software within the project, presently the Joomla Content Management System and Joomla Framework. The focus of the leadership restructuring and methodology seems to be on organizing the community surrounding this software platform. How does this restructuring support the mission of Joomla and Open Source Matters?
  • What items in section 5.3 make it mandatory for the Joomla project and Open Source Matters to introduce a new structure and methodology? What items on this list could be addressed in today’s structure? Is there evidence that restructuring the project will yield a positive change in line with the stated reasons for suggesting this plan?
Past: Release Lead, CMS Maintainer
Present: Framework Maintainer, Security Team Member, .org System Administrator, Bug Squad Member

Manually updating Joomla? See https://gist.github.com/mbabker/d7bfb4e1e2fbc6b7815a733607f89281

User avatar
MarijkeS
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:13 am
Location: Enschede, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby MarijkeS » Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:03 am

Hi Jenn,

Thanks for the question. Indeed there will be 'fine lines' or perhaps even overlap.
The local community department is aimed to be a place where teams are formed per language. The purpose of it is to create better connections with them. For some it might even a place to be better connected and improve collaboration per language. And hopefully from there we will get more involvement from local communities in the international project. As the description from that department says, subteams can be formed like for instance user groups.
The place to collaborate on an international level however for JUGs would still fit in the events department.

It is also the reason why we made the exception for team leaders from the local community department to allow them to be a team leader of a team in another department at the same time.
Coordinator Translationteam JoomlaCommunity.eu | Member Dutch Translation Team - http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/nederlands/l
Joomla! Translation Coordination Team

User avatar
mandville
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 13824
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:56 am
Location: The Girly Side of Joomla in Sussex

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby mandville » Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:19 am

a comparison chart may be helpful eg clt/plt liaison is now called ....
i agree with mbaker that the grievance procedure seems to work backwards
the ombudsman role is a fundamental part of the grievance process.
And with Jgress the JUG Team... wouldn't it make more sense to be in the Local Communities department?
HU2HY- Poor questions = Poor answer
Un requested Help PM's will be added to the foe list and possibly just deleted
{Community.Connect Administrator }{ Showcase & Security forums Moderator}

User avatar
mandville
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 13824
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:56 am
Location: The Girly Side of Joomla in Sussex

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby mandville » Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:24 am

MarijkeS wrote:The local community department is aimed to be a place where teams are formed per language.
eg en-gb ?
As the description from that department says, subteams can be formed like for instance user groups.
The place to collaborate on an international level however for JUGs would still fit in the events department.
that doesnt really make sense. JUGs are local community whatever language, not all JUGs hold Jday events and vice versa. {apologies for treading on toes but showing an outsider view}

It is also the reason why we made the exception for team leaders from the local community department to allow them to be a team leader of a team in another department at the same time.
cant all team leaders be team leaders of other teams?
HU2HY- Poor questions = Poor answer
Un requested Help PM's will be added to the foe list and possibly just deleted
{Community.Connect Administrator }{ Showcase & Security forums Moderator}

User avatar
MarijkeS
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:13 am
Location: Enschede, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby MarijkeS » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:10 am

mandville wrote:
MarijkeS wrote:The local community department is aimed to be a place where teams are formed per language.
eg en-gb ?

It's exactly for that reason we call it the local community department. I sure think there are also local communities in the English speaking regions (en-US, en-AU also included) that can collaborate on language base and/or local base. We certainly don't want to exclude them from this department.

mandville wrote:
As the description from that department says, subteams can be formed like for instance user groups.
The place to collaborate on an international level however for JUGs would still fit in the events department.
that doesnt really make sense. JUGs are local community whatever language, not all JUGs hold Jday events and vice versa. {apologies for treading on toes but showing an outsider view}

Yes that's an outsider view for sure, all JUGs no matter where they come from can benefit from sharing their knowledge and experiences on organising local JUGs with each other. Interaction on an international level should be encouraged absolutely.

mandville wrote:
It is also the reason why we made the exception for team leaders from the local community department to allow them to be a team leader of a team in another department at the same time.
cant all team leaders be team leaders of other teams?

No, a team leader can be elected to only one Team, see heading 4.5.1
Coordinator Translationteam JoomlaCommunity.eu | Member Dutch Translation Team - http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/nederlands/l
Joomla! Translation Coordination Team

User avatar
agrevet
Joomla! Apprentice
Joomla! Apprentice
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: France

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby agrevet » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:38 am

mbabker wrote:[*]It is stated in the document and by long-standing community members that OSM was purposefully created to be a “weak” organization. I see this “weak” structure as having a very narrowly defined purpose and mission to which OSM has been performing this purpose successfully. Why is there a feeling that the OSM organization must grow to consume the Joomla project’s daily operations?


Hi Michael,

That’s correct that the goal was to make OSM weak - but even then, like today, Open Source Matters, Inc., has all the legal and financial control. If it were to come down to a formal dispute, let’s say OSM wants to take the project in one direction, and the rest of leadership wants to go in another direction, OSM is the only entity that can walk away with the Joomla name, not to mention the finances. The designation of “weak” that you mention isn’t true in reality. The only weak bodies are those not called Open Source Matters, Inc., when you look at it that way.

Both of the alternative proposals that were presented at JWC, which we looked at carefully and discussed, maintain a “weak” OSM separate from the rest of leadership.

The Structural Team studied and discussed this a lot, and decided that the strongest configuration for the project is to have one leadership team, and call it Open Source Matters, Inc. The leading representatives of the project will sit around one table, fully empowered to manage it in a unified way. No single leadership team will have any legal power it can wield over another one.
Alice Grevet

Member, Community Leadership Team (CLT)
Co Lead Editor, Joomla! Community Magazine

User avatar
tresan
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Odense - DK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby tresan » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:04 am

Id like to point out that as the new OSM will consist of 1 board member from each of the 7 departments (CLT, PLT and OSM is in reality split into 7 departments) and 4 officers elected by all of the team leaders in all the 7 departments - it doesnt make sense to consider this as OSM is today.

OSM is the legal entity behind Joomla - but with the new structure the board members are representative of each of the 7 departments + the 4 officers making a total of 11.

This should hopefully ensure a unified and coheesive leadership that strongly represents all parts and interests of the community and project at a whole.

For me one of the really great elements is the local communities department which creates a clear path of inclusion from local to global contribution in the community.

Coming from a small national community myself (the Danish) i really feel this could help to get more of our local community members included and enaged on the global level :)
Ronni K. G. Christiansen (@redwebdk)
http://www.redcomponent.com/ - One big family of Joomla extentions & templates
http://redweb.dk - Joomla Webdesign & Development
redHOST.dk - 100% Joomla Webhotel - Dansk support med Joomla viden!

User avatar
rdeutz
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:50 am
Location: Germany - Aachen
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby rdeutz » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:57 am

I wrote two blog post (Hard truth! and An alternative structure for the Joomla! Project) with more of my background thinking, here I’ll try to keep it short.

At the moment we have a balance between the three teams CLT (community, marketing), OSM (TM, finance), PLT (development, product quality). Each part can’t work without the other ones. It is correct that OSM has the power to walk away with the name Joomla! and the money. But that is nothing without CLT and PLT. Do you remember Mambo? The structure proposal removes that balance entirely.

The proposal suggest a corporate business like structure. Joomla now has some kind of hippy structure and I really like that. What we really need is more trust and safety for people working in teams. A corporate structure implements a system of control, un-trust and fear. Needless to say that this is never going to work in a 100% volunteers based organisation.

There is no prove that the new structure will do a better job, so a radical change seems to me wrong. We should start to identify the real problems and fix them one by one.
Best Regards, Robert
My Blog: http://www.robert-deutz.de - follow me on twitter @rdeutz
Professional Services for Joomla! http://rdbs.de - follow on twitter @rdbsnews

User avatar
brian
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 11305
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby brian » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:02 am

So to be clear then - the Department Heads in this proposal are Team Leaders with leadership roles and responsibilities and not simply co-ordinators with no responsibility as defined in the previous proposal and explained ad nauseum.

Which means that we are transitioning from 3 groups consisting approx 30 people who are the project leaders to an exclusive elite single group of 9 leaders
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/

User avatar
brian
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 11305
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby brian » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:20 am

Ronni - re local communities

Please forgive me if I am missing something absolutely blindingly obvious but I just can't see what in the current structure has prevented the increased representation of local communities as you describe. From everything I have read by you and others on this aspect of the proposal this could have been done at any time in the last 10 years - it doesnt need a complete change in the project for that. If, as you appear to be implying, that this has not been done then the real question is why not and why havent the CLT been doing this.

I would suggest that this has not been done before because by creating a separate department for Local Communities you are actually marginalising them and pushing them off to the side instead of integrating them "All together a a Whole"
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/

wilsonge
Joomla! Intern
Joomla! Intern
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby wilsonge » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:21 am

tresan wrote:CLT, PLT and OSM is in reality split into 7 departments


I think this is my 'biggest' issue with the proposals. Currently there's substantial amounts of issues with the lack of OSM/CLT/PLT communications (the word in silo's seems to be popular at the moment). By splitting these teams up it has the potential to make things even worse as there are now 7 silo's where you can have potentially no coordination between each team. Whilst in a perfect world of course this communication can happen in real life it clearly hasn't - and I don't see anything in this proposal that increases the likelihood of that communication happening. Potentially the 7 team heads get to talk about project threatening decisions in 'new OSM' meetings - but that doesn't help the day to day communication in the project

Kind Regards,
George

User avatar
sarahwatz
Joomla! Apprentice
Joomla! Apprentice
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 7:59 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby sarahwatz » Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:31 pm

brian wrote:So to be clear then - the Department Heads in this proposal are Team Leaders with leadership roles and responsibilities and not simply co-ordinators with no responsibility as defined in the previous proposal and explained ad nauseum.

Which means that we are transitioning from 3 groups consisting approx 30 people who are the project leaders to an exclusive elite single group of 9 leaders


Brian, thanks for asking.

The proposal is proposing a structure very different from how it is today. Today each Leadership Team elects their own members. And the three leadership teams are not collaborating in an effective way. The proposal defines a new election process where the different roles in leadership are defined and many more community members will be able to elect the leaders that will represent and lead the organisation.

In the proposal the Department Coordination Team Leaders are Team Leaders of the Department Coordination Team. The Department Coordination Team is responsible for assisting and helping each team to be most effective and collaborate with other teams. In matters where multiple departments are involved, the Department Coordination Teams of the departments involved will assist in communications and decisions. The primary role of the Department Coordination Team is the role of a facilitator. And as we have previously said they are not the “boss of their department” and they do not “dictate” what the teams in their department should or shouldn’t do.

The Structural Team has listened to the Working Group phase feedback on the proposal that one Department Coordinator would not be enough to carry out these tasks. So now there is a team which will support the Department in the tasks explained above. The Department Coordination Team Leader will, as it has been said in previous version of the proposal, represent the department on the Board of Directors. The Department Coordination Team Leader are voted to the board of directors by the Team Leaders in their department to represent the teams.

A representation on the board of directors from the organisation is one of the many strengths of this proposal. All departments will have have a voice, through the Department Coordination Team Leader, at board meeting level to voice their opinions and ideas, get listened to and taken into account before decisions are made. Department Coordination Team Leaders are board members which gives them the voting rights at board meetings and a part of the decision making process.

With warmth,
Sarah

------------------
Sarah Watz
President, Open Source Matters, Inc.
http://opensourcematters.org/

User avatar
brian
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 11305
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby brian » Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:41 pm

Thank you for comfirming my assumption
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/

User avatar
MarijkeS
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:13 am
Location: Enschede, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby MarijkeS » Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:28 pm

brian wrote:Ronni - re local communities

Please forgive me if I am missing something absolutely blindingly obvious but I just can't see what in the current structure has prevented the increased representation of local communities as you describe. From everything I have read by you and others on this aspect of the proposal this could have been done at any time in the last 10 years - it doesnt need a complete change in the project for that. If, as you appear to be implying, that this has not been done then the real question is why not and why havent the CLT been doing this.

I would suggest that this has not been done before because by creating a separate department for Local Communities you are actually marginalising them and pushing them off to the side instead of integrating them "All together a a Whole"


Hi Brian, I hope you don’t mind me jumping into the question you had to Ronni.
To start with your last remark, pushing them aside by a separate department was exactly why I had my doubts initially to create such a department. In the previous proposal some discussion about it can still be read in the comments. The reason to implement it in the structure is that it never has been easy so far to really have good connections to local communities. In history, for local communities there have always been a lot of requirements to apply to while there was no real benefit for them in it, more pain than pleasure so to speak. Despite that, fortunately a number of local communities did the effort and got more or less connected (I’m coming from one of them as you know), but a lot stayed at the safety of their own local, doing their own thing and not having the trouble.

A separate department can help them identify a clear place as a starting point, they can form teams and will have the same voting rights each team role has. In this new structure we finally do have something to offer them in return. The advantage for having teams per language will hopefully create even more collaboration, which could also result in sharing their local community experience with other communities, get connected with each other about a number of mutual subjects local communities have. It will also identify a clear place for the project where we can easily collect information about culture, laws, religious holidays and more subjects we might not be aware of today but can potentially be of importance to take into account. Not to mention that f.i language teams of translators can be build with their own style guides they create per language. From there the translators can work in subteams in the project on the different aspects that needs translation and of course get integrated in the relevant teams by doing so. Not only translation, but also the benefit of helping fellow countrymen/women get integrated, encourage them to step over language barriers they might experience. Seeing examples close to you makes people follow with more confidence and step out of their comfort zone. From this department it will hopefully be a small step.
Coordinator Translationteam JoomlaCommunity.eu | Member Dutch Translation Team - http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/nederlands/l
Joomla! Translation Coordination Team

User avatar
mbabker
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: White Bear Lake, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby mbabker » Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:35 pm

agrevet wrote:The Structural Team studied and discussed this a lot, and decided that the strongest configuration for the project is to have one leadership team, and call it Open Source Matters, Inc. The leading representatives of the project will sit around one table, fully empowered to manage it in a unified way. No single leadership team will have any legal power it can wield over another one.


I would suggest that if this is going to be the way forward for Open Source Matters that it has a clearly published mission and purpose then. Today, the mission as stated on the OSM website ( http://opensourcematters.org/about/orga ... alues.html ) and Joomla's website ( http://www.joomla.org/about-joomla/the- ... alues.html ) are exact mirrors. In reality, Open Source Matters as an organization has a different mission than Joomla; while Joomla is indeed fulfilling the mission statement, I believe that the mission of OSM needs to be better clarified to indicate its support role for FOSS projects such as Joomla and that its mission and purpose should be crafted in a way that presents the organization as capable of future growth and expansion beyond a single brand/project, again as was suggested in the past with regards to management of the Joomla! Framework.

This might suggest that I support the notion of two separate entities. The reality is there are indeed two; there is a legal entity (OSM) and a FOSS project (Joomla), and therefore it should be made clear the mission and purpose of these two entities and how they are designed to co-exist.

The proposal states the following:

In reality we are all part of the same organization - Open Source Matters Inc. We all volunteer for this organization - Open Source Matters, Inc. And this has always been the case.


This is actually a major shift in the mentality of the project and its contributors. I for one have always viewed my time as being spent for supporting the Joomla project, not Open Source Matters as an organization. I'm sure others feel the same. For this text and philosophy to be accepted, it needs to be clear how volunteers roles in contributing to OSM is benefiting the Joomla project, or any other project that may be accepted under the OSM banner in the future.
Past: Release Lead, CMS Maintainer
Present: Framework Maintainer, Security Team Member, .org System Administrator, Bug Squad Member

Manually updating Joomla? See https://gist.github.com/mbabker/d7bfb4e1e2fbc6b7815a733607f89281

User avatar
brian
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 11305
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby brian » Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:39 pm

@marijke I agree that there is an issue but I completely disagree that this is the correct solution to that specific issue. The same argument could be made for creating both an LGBT and Women Only Department.
I just dont see how it solves the issues faced by for example the french community in becoming centrally involved in Joomla. All this does is to acknowledge the issue and continues to ignore it.
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/

User avatar
porwig
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:51 am
Location: Parker, Colorado USA
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby porwig » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:27 pm

Hi Sarah,

I appreciate that the Structural Team listened to that point from the Working Group feedback phase, but I don't think forming 7 new department coordination teams in a new layer for the organization structure is a good solution, especially if part of the overall goal for this initiative is to become a more agile organization.

As an aside, I don't agree with how the current graphic for the proposed structure displays the 7 new department coordination teams at the same level as all the individual teams. Based on my understanding of their role, I think the 7 new department coordination teams should be displayed on a separate level just below the board, and with lines of communication that connect vertically both up and down, as well as horizontally left and right.

My suggestion on this point is to first reduce/consolidate the number of departments, and then elect two department coordinators from each department to the new board, and finally eliminate the 7 new department coordination teams. That will address the issues of reducing the workload and providing backups, and it will also give a better solution for staggered terms at the board level and also for simplifying/streamlining communications.

I think that adding even up to 7 more individuals to the board would be better than adding 7 new teams to a new layer of the organization structure.

I think it would be even better to separate the board from the Unified Leadership Team, as was shared in two alternate proposals during the Working Group feedback phase. I understand the reasons that have given from the Structural Team for combining everyone into one team on OSM, but I do not agree with those reasons - in my mind that approach doesn't offer a mechanism for truly effective checks/balances, which I think is important. I will share more about that along with other ideas in another post. :-)

Thanks,

paul

sarahwatz wrote:In the proposal the Department Coordination Team Leaders are Team Leaders of the Department Coordination Team. The Department Coordination Team is responsible for assisting and helping each team to be most effective and collaborate with other teams. In matters where multiple departments are involved, the Department Coordination Teams of the departments involved will assist in communications and decisions. The primary role of the Department Coordination Team is the role of a facilitator. And as we have previously said they are not the “boss of their department” and they do not “dictate” what the teams in their department should or shouldn’t do.

The Structural Team has listened to the Working Group phase feedback on the proposal that one Department Coordinator would not be enough to carry out these tasks. So now there is a team which will support the Department in the tasks explained above. The Department Coordination Team Leader will, as it has been said in previous version of the proposal, represent the department on the Board of Directors. The Department Coordination Team Leader are voted to the board of directors by the Team Leaders in their department to represent the teams.
Paul Orwig

jgress-
Joomla! Guru
Joomla! Guru
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:40 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby jgress- » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:50 pm

MarijkeS wrote:Yes that's an outsider view for sure, all JUGs no matter where they come from can benefit from sharing their knowledge and experiences on organising local JUGs with each other. Interaction on an international level should be encouraged absolutely.


MarijkeS wrote:The local community department is aimed to be a place where teams are formed per language. The purpose of it is to create better connections with them. For some it might even a place to be better connected and improve collaboration per language. And hopefully from there we will get more involvement from local communities in the international project.


I believe this is going to be very confusing. I for one am confused. Yes, the outside world will see JUGs as "Local Communities" - in fact, I would venture to guess that most JUGs think of themselves as Local Joomla Communities. Perhaps you might change that Department name to better fit what you are defining it as (maybe internationalisation or translation teams or something - I'm not even entirely clear on what you mean for this department to do. Perhaps I lack insight and/or knowledge).

I like to think that JUGs are more than just "Events." Perhaps I am incorrect in this perception. I do hope these labels/departments don't limit what a team can do. I believe that JUGs are one of the most important aspects of the community because they are the face of Joomla around the world.

Jenn
Co-author Using Joomla, Second Edition (migration/upgrade included) http://www.usingjoomlabook.com
Find a Joomla User Group (JUG) near you http://community.joomla.org/user-groups.html

User avatar
tresan
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Odense - DK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby tresan » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:14 pm

In the last 10 years most of the local Communities around the World never got connected to the global community - so Brian while you say it could happen today - my answer is simple: it didnt.

Since the split up into 3 LT's there has been no effective leadership structure - its not working from any point of view - thats the fact today.

So i dont think anyone can agree our current structure is not working - id go as far as say we outgrew it a long time ago.

The original idea of splitting the core team into 3 teams was to let people handle their "pets" so Things would move a long Again because having 1 large leadership Group had become ineffective.

Today our community is so big and leadership has become to ineffective and unstructured that the same exact thing has happend Again.

I dont think siloing everything and letting people handle their "pets" is an answer.

So for the 7 departments not to be siloed they need to be representatively joint at 1 level - which is OSM.

This is where the overall coordination between the departments happens.

The departments handles the overall coordination of each department (with the new addition of the coordination team in the department).

Also let me just provide some objective observations here on the eternal debate of OSM vs no OSM:

1) The majority of the 6 departments (not counting the local Communities) will be made up of teams that are primarily under PLT and CLT today

2) This leads to the assumption that the majority of the department coordinators (which sit on the board) will be elected from team leaders with a mandate from their team members that could vote on the people they know (which would i would assume be people sitting on CLT and PLT today)

3) This doubble representation chain assures that people that contribute has a voice (and a vote) directly or indirectly - even the local Communities has a vote and has 1 department coordinator as board member - so there is clear inclusion, clear path for contribution and a clear transparent structure for all to take part in. (is letting people who contribute vote a bad thing?)

4) In 2015 OSM has transfered all teams to PLT and CLT who we thought would belong there in the current structure and all their budgets are equally also under the 2 LT's now.

So the basic question to the conspiracy people out there - if OSM was out to take over power why is it giving away influence to teams, team leaders, other LT's, budgetingwise etc.?

Lets try and move on and go into concrete elements instead - personally i am very much interested in hearing why some people are affraid of giving contributors the right to vote? or why its bad to make an institution like an Ombudsman or to create a new external advisory board etc.

I mean there is and will be difference in opinions and lets face it we will never agree 100% - this IS a compromise to do the best for our community at large.

Some people dont want any form of voting - others want all voting and then there is all the positions in between.

When it all comes down to it this proposal is the most structured, thought through inclusive and transparent structure ever to be proposed for our organization and community - and i bet if people will give it a chance you will see its working.

It sure isnt working today is it.
Ronni K. G. Christiansen (@redwebdk)
http://www.redcomponent.com/ - One big family of Joomla extentions & templates
http://redweb.dk - Joomla Webdesign & Development
redHOST.dk - 100% Joomla Webhotel - Dansk support med Joomla viden!

User avatar
brian
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 11305
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby brian » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:19 pm

Ronni

Please answer peoples questions - dont just propose the topics you want to speak about.
Please dont put words into peoples mouths - if people want to say something then I am sure they will

Most people wont though because of how they were treated and ignored the last time they tried to comment
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/

User avatar
tresan
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Odense - DK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby tresan » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:32 pm

Brian

I answered your post :)

Marijke is working on answers for Michaels long and very specific post (thank you for that Michael).

There is a lot of opinions and thats fine - there is not that many questions - and opinsions is something you debate - not answer :)
Ronni K. G. Christiansen (@redwebdk)
http://www.redcomponent.com/ - One big family of Joomla extentions & templates
http://redweb.dk - Joomla Webdesign & Development
redHOST.dk - 100% Joomla Webhotel - Dansk support med Joomla viden!

User avatar
rdeutz
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:50 am
Location: Germany - Aachen
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby rdeutz » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:38 pm

Ronni saying the current leadership is only handling there "pets" is not appropriate and disrespectful.
Best Regards, Robert
My Blog: http://www.robert-deutz.de - follow me on twitter @rdeutz
Professional Services for Joomla! http://rdbs.de - follow on twitter @rdbsnews

User avatar
Tonie
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 16584
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:13 am

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby Tonie » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:46 pm

I, like many others, have been part of the project for ten years. In that time, I've felt and been part of the Joomla project/community. Not one second in those ten years, I felt that I was part of OSM.

When Joomla leadership is called OSM, the Joomla brand name will be weakened. For every person in leadership speaking about Joomla around the world, they will often speak about Joomla but with an OSM badge.

Also, as Michael said, the missions of the two organisations are different. If we have problems now with leadership and the amount of work, how is leadersh going to split their time between OSB the legal/financial entity, Joomla leadership, and any other part of bettering open source in other matters.

User avatar
tresan
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Odense - DK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby tresan » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:09 pm

rdeutz wrote:Ronni saying the current leadership is only handling there "pets" is not appropriate and disrespectful.


Actually thats not what i said.

People who explained (at the LT Summit at JWC14) why the core team was split into 3 teams back then explained it in those words.

So it was referencing why the Core team was split into 3 teams because the structure of the Core team did not work any longer as the project had outgrown it and peoples interests where split into different areas (their "pets")

Tonie: OSM is the legal structure behind Joomla today and has all legal and financial control - thats how the law is and why its there.

Do you feel more represented by Production Leadership Team or Community Leadership Team?

The names doesnt matter much - the main point is that people that take part and contribute should be included and have the right to have their voice heard - but on the same time it makes little sense to not call it what it is - the organization is called Open Source Matters Inc.

On the Leadership meeting at JAB 2014 all of LT agreed that the mission, vision etc. of both OSM as a Whole and the "product" Joomla the CMS should be renewed - we just never got to a point where we could agree or finalize what it should be.

But as is it today Joomla CMS and Joomla Framework is "products" or "projects" under Open Source Matters Inc - thats how the legal Foundation of the organization is - the organzations name is Open Source Matters Inc. - does it affect anyone in the day to day operations? Nopes not at all its just a name - it can be changed to "Joomla Inc" or whatever.

But creating a Unified Leadership Team with no real legal Foundation does not solve the issue - the board that has the actual legal and fiscal control and liability (notice this point exactly board members are liabable under law!) should be sitting in the top of the organization.

These people will be just exactly who the people in the teams elect as team leaders - who then elects the board members (department coordinators) and officers.

So the simple concept is to merge things into a real structure where those who has the legal liability and responsibility is also at the table in full legal power.

The entire concept of an OSM rubberstamping everything is silly - why would people rubberstamp stuff they can go to jail for?

I do realize that understand the concepts of the organization structure and the legal requirements etc. can be quite new to many people - but it does not make sense to not have the people at the highest leadership level has the responsibility when they have it legally.

Personally i think most of the new OSM will be elected from members of PLT and CLT today - i'd think 2/3rds or so of OSM is in the regular teams etc. doing what they do best (including myself) - and thats fine - this is NOT a power struggle, this is NOT about people, this is about creating a proper structure that has cohesion and is sound, legal and transparent.
Ronni K. G. Christiansen (@redwebdk)
http://www.redcomponent.com/ - One big family of Joomla extentions & templates
http://redweb.dk - Joomla Webdesign & Development
redHOST.dk - 100% Joomla Webhotel - Dansk support med Joomla viden!

User avatar
MarijkeS
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:13 am
Location: Enschede, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby MarijkeS » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:56 pm

brian wrote:@marijke I agree that there is an issue but I completely disagree that this is the correct solution to that specific issue. The same argument could be made for creating both an LGBT and Women Only Department.
I just dont see how it solves the issues faced by for example the french community in becoming centrally involved in Joomla. All this does is to acknowledge the issue and continues to ignore it.

@Brian, as stated I had my doubts, since the last thing I want is separating local communities, or create boxes. I’d rather wish integration of any kind of diversity was easy and doesn’t need any special attention or approach to encourage it more. But the reality is different whether we like or not.

I think we both agree that doing nothing, just hoping they will integrate in all areas of the project will not have the result we’d like to see. It will simply not happen.
Just creating a department for them is certainly in my mind not the only thing. So to me it is not continuing to ignore the issues. It is acknowledging there are issues, and at the same time realizing that we need to work on it together (as a whole!). We as a project, can’t simply keep saying go solve your own local problems, at the same time, local communities should realize that their efforts are needed as well.

Yes, I am aware of issues on local level, the French community is not an exception. I figure I don’t have to picture you what we as a Dutch community went through on a local level. And for everyone else, it wasn’t this peaceful and successful community everyone speaks of today. It took time, efforts, persistence and for all it took the long breath of keeping positive and work on improving. I am happy where we are today, though there are still (and hopefully always be) ways to improve. I am happy about the way we interact and collaborate with our neighbor the German community. We have learned a great deal from each other and it’s a good thing to see how their is more and more involvement from both communities in the international project. It is an example on how we can help each other, and being near is here the helping factor. To me the local community department is a potential way to be near to each other and help each other overcome our issues and improve for the benefit of us all. I really wish a lot more local communities could experience the same as the Dutch and the German communities do.

If you have other suggestions, ideas to achieve this, I’m all ears and open to any.
Coordinator Translationteam JoomlaCommunity.eu | Member Dutch Translation Team - http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/nederlands/l
Joomla! Translation Coordination Team

User avatar
MarijkeS
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:13 am
Location: Enschede, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Postby MarijkeS » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:04 pm

Thank you Michael for raising your concerns.

mbabker wrote:It is mentioned several times how this new structure will define a roadmap or long term goals for the project. This has happened in the past, especially from the existing PLT with regards to a roadmap for the software produced under the Joomla banner. How will this structure better establish, and follow through, on these planning documents versus today’s structure?


Overall long term goals and values for the organization will guide all the organization. For example if one of the values would be “simplify” all teams could define what could be a good action for them to take to make it happen. For example “simplify” for the CMS Development team could be make the Admin Template more UX friendly. For the Organization Team it could be simplify the process to join a team.

Each team can produce their own roadmap in the new structure. They are the ones that best know what goals they have and create the roadmap to achieve them. Where collaboration is needed across teams, the department coordinators can help to establish combined roadmaps. The department coordination team can also bring their departments goals and roadmap to the board where it will be represented by the department coordination team leader.

mbabker wrote:It is stated in the document and by long-standing community members that OSM was purposefully created to be a “weak” organization. I see this “weak” structure as having a very narrowly defined purpose and mission to which OSM has been performing this purpose successfully. Why is there a feeling that the OSM organization must grow to consume the Joomla project’s daily operations?


Initially OSM was created to do the job the (then) core team didn’t like to do and to be able to focus on their main task (to code). The project has grown, and over time things have changed. Today we find more and more how the 3 leadership teams need to collaborate on certain subjects and levels. Since there is no good procedure on a number of subjects we find ourselves often in a vacuum where subjects we all want to move forward on get stuck.
OSM that is proposed in the structure proposal should not be compared with what OSM is today or was in the past. It will be the body where all departments are represented equally, collaboration between departments will be ensured and where interaction on any level (also on legal or financial matters) can move forward much quicker with processes and procedures in place.

mbabker wrote:[*]In line with the previous thought, should Open Source Matters become the supporting organization for another brand or project, as has been suggested with regards to the Joomla! Framework, how does this structure enable both brands or projects to function simultaneously? Does this structure imply then that all projects supported by Open Source Matters would fall under the same leadership teams and organizational structure?


This question is hypothetical to some level. Though the Framework can be seen as a new project, it is not another brand and it is doubtful if the people working on it want it to be another brand or rather want to maintain the connection with Joomla. So it is hard for this structure team to answer such a question where things are not clear on the project itself. We will be sure that when it would come to such a situation, this will be discussed thoroughly with all the people involved first.

mbabker wrote:[*]It is stated several times in Section 2 that as one organization, there will be more cohesiveness and teamwork with less individual efforts or silos. What assurances do we have that this will actually happen?


Having a defined structure where there are procedures and processes defined will help each team move forward much more easy. Assurances that it will actually happen is up to the people working in the different teams, they will have more power to make things actually happen together with defined processes and procedures on how to handle and take decisions. If we truly want to be a community driven project, we need to have processes and procedures in place to move forwards.

mbabker wrote:[*]How is the Advisory Board selected? Are there terms for members of the Advisory Board? What qualifications are required to be selected to this role?


mbabker wrote:[*]How is the Ombudsman structure organized? Is this a role for a single individual or is this a team?


For both the advisory board and the Ombudsman detailed procedures on how to select them, the amount of members and terms are not defined yet. We have done some investigation on how other (OS) projects have done this, but it needs to be worked out further if we want to go along with these ideas, as it is stated in the document.

mbabker wrote:[*]Is there any oversight over these external teams, and if so, what?


Somewhere the oversight needs to have an end, we can’t possibly have endlessly oversight over an overseeing body, at some point we need to have trust.

mbabker wrote:[*]The Ombudsman structure notes a Conflict of Interest regulation. Is this in draft form for review?


No, it is subject to work on if we agree to implement the Ombudsman role.

mbabker wrote:[*]A failure with Joomla’s existing structure and marketing is the disconnected look and feel of the joomla.org network of sites. This is carried forward by way of the Operations Department which lists a separate team for nearly every subdomain on the network. Is there any oversight being placed on the management of the Joomla web presence in this new structure or is the network going to continue to represent 25+ wholly disconnected websites?


Joomla!s brand and strategic communication is right now worked on by the marketing team together with an external marketing firm. The outcome of this collaboration would guide the presence online for the future. There’s also a brand manual that will support how we use the brand. The marketing team would be responsible for the web presence. The operation department teams for the different sites would be responsible for managing the sites.


mbabker wrote:[*]Is there a cap on the number of “elected” Team Members?


No, there is only a definition what a Team Member’s role is and their term. A team can decide how many regular tasks they have and how many team members they prefer to elect for that.

mbabker wrote:[*]The complaint procedure notes that complaints about a Team Contributor or Team Member are to be taken to “superiors” in the leadership structure. However, complaints about a Team Leader, Department Coordinator, or Officer are taken to levels below those individuals in the structure. Why should all complaints not be taken either to a “superior” or “parallel” team member or only the Ombudsman?


In the complaint procedure we have taken into account who will be able to vote on which role and prevent a conflict of interest when complaints are made. A Team Contributor can not vote, so there will be no conflict of interest. A Team Member however votes for a Team Leader, therefore the Team Leader will not be able to remove a Team Member all by him/her self but needs to contact the department coordination team about a complaint (remember that the team member also is appointed by the department coordination team, and a Team Member can not directly vote on the department coordinators). A superior could depend on a vote of the person the complaint is reported about. A parallel Team Member can be voting on the role of a person the complaint is about. Their objectivity is in question therefore. Example, a Team Member takes a complaint to a department coordinator about a Team Leader. This department coordinator is elected by the Team Leaders of that department. This could influence the objectivity of the department coordinator. To prevent this conflict of interest, complaints about a Team Leader are therefore handled by the entire relevant department coordination team, together with the Team Members of the relevant team. It will also prevent that the department coordinator can get rid of a Team Leader which he/she expects to vote against him/her. The same procedure is provided for complaints on a department coordinator, where the department coordination team leader is considered a board director and rules are provided in the bylaws. On all occasions complaints are not handled by one person, but by a group. A ⅔ vote is required to finally be able to remove a person from a role that is voted on.

Why not take it all to the Ombudsman - The Ombudsman should be seen as a body that provides a solution in conflicts where all procedures have been followed and a person, or parties are not accepting the decisions made. The Ombudsman should be able to review all steps taken, can overrule a decision where procedures are not followed accordingly and give the ultimate decision on the situation.

mbabker wrote:[*]The proposal in effect makes all contributors to Joomla members of Open Source Matters, Inc. What, if any, legal ramifications does this impose on who may contribute to the project?


The proposal does not make all contributors to members of Open Source Matters Inc. All the Team Leaders (including department coordination team leaders) and the four officers are considered to be members of Open Source Matters Inc. Anybody can contribute to the project, can become a team contributor and get involved up to the level he/she desires.
Having members of OSM is a legal requirement that comes with the certificate of the organization. Today, the OSM directors that were on the board in May 2014 are admitted to be the members of OSM. It’s a solution we all are not to happy about and at the time it was implemented that way, was meant as a temporary way to solve this issue. The team leaders being members of OSM could in future mean as much as being able to vote on the board positions and, as you can read today in the bylaws of OSM, have options to call for special meetings.

In the past options to change the name into f.i “Joomla Foundation” or something similar has been looked into. I don’t have the exact details of the outcome at hand, but what I remember from it was that it would be an expensive process where the outcome would probably not be satisfying. But that doesn’t mean this option is a closed way, if it would make sense to a lot of people it can’t hurt to reinvestigate it again.

mbabker wrote:[*]Part of the proposal’s foundation is that a revised structure increases transparency and accountability project wide? What mechanisms are in place to ensure this is actually followed through on and to ensure that the new structure does not result in similar issues that we experience today?


Changing our culture and way of how we do things are not easy tasks. One idea is to publish our long term goals along with the yearly goals and tasks. These should be detailed enough to be measured along with the approved budget and who is the task owner. A quarterly or yearly report (depending on the task nature) of what’s been done and how things are moving along according to the goal. This would make it easier to evaluate the efforts and also have a good insight in the work carried out.

mbabker wrote:[*]Will there be exemptions with regards to the transparency “required” from all teams? For example. should the Security Strike Team hold regular meetings where active security concerns are addressed, to what detail would the team be required to disclose the text of their discussion?


Increase transparency does not mean that the organization will be forced to disclose everything. Transparency for some teams would be different from others. For some it would be to report highly overview information but no details. For some teams it’s totally ok to disclose everything.

This would also be true for other teams as well like Certification that can’t disclose all the questions worked on but that they are moving along towards the target and meeting their progress goals would be good to report. Or the Legal Teams can’t not also disclose all.

mbabker wrote:[*]The mission of Joomla and Open Source Matters "is to provide a flexible platform for digital publishing and collaboration”. This implies a priority should be placed on the development of software within the project, presently the Joomla Content Management System and Joomla Framework. The focus of the leadership restructuring and methodology seems to be on organizing the community surrounding this software platform. How does this restructuring support the mission of Joomla and Open Source Matters?


Our code should be our focus. If we don’t have that to offer the world we can just shut this organisation down. I think we all agree on it. But to make it successful - ie used by many we need to get our message out there, attract more community members to volunteer, etc. So the idea is to have an organisation that is supporting our code so we don’t have to focus on the organisation and structure but focus on getting things happen without hassle.

mbabker wrote:[*]What items in section 5.3 make it mandatory for the Joomla project and Open Source Matters to introduce a new structure and methodology? What items on this list could be addressed in today’s structure? Is there evidence that restructuring the project will yield a positive change in line with the stated reasons for suggesting this plan?


It’s like refactoring code. We have tried this structure (that was initially created for use during a short time frame) and we could patch the current structure with ideas from this proposal. But we think we have come to a point where we need to do an overhaul of the organisation as a whole and do a restart to release new energy and momentum.

Over the past years we have seen a change of Leadership trying to open more up to the community and be more responsive to it. Not having processes and procedures in place to support this did not gain the trust we seek, and frankly we can’t give the community this trust just by the look of our beautiful blue eyes. Having clear defined processes and procedures can give us all better ways to handle it and create trust. But it will take efforts of us all to change our methodology and create a positive change, the proposal alone will not guarantee it.

Disclaimer: While I am posting the respons on Michaels questions, I like to point out that not all answers are provided by me. Since it was a long post with many questions, it has been a team effort to provide a respons. (which again does not imply I do not support them!)
Coordinator Translationteam JoomlaCommunity.eu | Member Dutch Translation Team - http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/nederlands/l
Joomla! Translation Coordination Team


Return to “Community Blog Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests