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!)