Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizational

[brian]

[this is not a company or a corporation

OSM is a company

The officers (President, Treasurer, Secretary) are not above the Department Coordinators, or separate from them, but on the same level and in the same group, working together in one organizational board.

1. Perhaps not in your design but the President certainly is in law. The current OSM by-laws specifically give the OSM president additional authority that does not apply to others

2. Perhaps not in your design but the President certainly does in the public perception and the perception created by OSM when it has consistently over the last 5(sic) years promoted the person with the title President as the leader of Joomla.

[agrevet]

Hi Brian - thanks for that.

The officers (President, Treasurer, Secretary) are not above the Department Coordinators, or separate from them, but on the same level and in the same group, working together in one organizational board.

1. Perhaps not in your design but the President certainly is in law. The current OSM by-laws specifically give the OSM president additional authority that does not apply to others

2. Perhaps not in your design but the President certainly does in the public perception and the perception created by OSM when it has consistently over the last 5(sic) years promoted the person with the title President as the leader of Joomla.

Isn't this all the more reason to have the President sitting around the same table with the leaders, and not off on a separate team by herself?

[dhuelsmann]

Alice

You can have everyone you want sitting around a table today but it will not make those that are not directors and officers of OSM equal in responsibilities and authority as far as the law is concerned in the state of New York for a charitable organization. The board members of OSM have a fiduciary duty to the organization - one, in my opinion, they have not been exercising. The rest of those in leadership have no such duty or responsibility. You don't have to tear down an organization and rebuild to accomplish bringing people in to work together. Just saying...

[MarijkeS]

An update on the available translations:

The Preface and Executive Summary are now available in:
French by Nicolas Ogier
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d_N ... sp=sharing

Dutch by Marijke Stuivenberg & Martijn Maandag
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BzV ... sp=sharing

Español by Anibal Sanchez
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14Dx ... sp=sharing

Portuguese by Diogo Jesus
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/125m ... sp=sharing

Italian by Donato Matturro & Cristina Magni
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nzL ... sp=sharing

Links are also added to the document.

A huge thank you goes to the translators.

Added
German by Stefanie Thielmann
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gsU ... sp=sharing

Thank you for your translation

[MarijkeS]

We can go into discussions about terminology used - OSM is a company, yes, but it is a not-for-profit company. There is a distinction between charity and not-for-profit.
How interesting as it would be to go into deep discussion what this means legally or not, I don't think it will be that effective for the true discussion we asked for here - feedback on the proposal.

Bottom line - Comparing the current proposal with what happened in history is comparing apples with oranges, and we don't even take into account then the different perceptions on that event. - conclusion trying to compare that situation with the current proposal is hardly to do - I think we all agree on one thing though, we don't want that situation again and we certainly are going to do everything to prevent that from happening.
Personal opinions on what the current board does or does not is not providing feedback on the proposal.
So, let's try to stay on topic and the purpose of this thread - feedback on the proposal where the structure team can work on.

Just a fyi, as Sander already said we will have a meeting tomorrow and we are processing the former postings right now.

[leolam]

Marijke you may want to try to shut down the BoD-role discussion and that is so sad since that has happened way too often in this Community..... "agree or get lost!"

So maybe to bring it into very simple perspective: Is my understanding correct that we will have a BoD who define course of action, all who do not agree in their reporting roles towards them can get fired or removed by them or a President who has the 'God' (zilla) powers?

Just a simple question: Who can remove OSM/BoD-members or more dismiss the entire Board? Did I miss that if yes please point me to the article in the proposal?

Who is overseeing the Board? (BoC-members - appointed 'external' commissioners ?) as in proper business what we seem to follow now?) Nobody controlling the Board? I am sure I have missed that but can somebody point me to (example) "how can the community get rid of a group of people (BoD) who's only interest is to protect their own (business) interests or create a "Miro-like" situation?" if such occasion arises?

Again I do respect all efforts being made to make this a better structure but I am missing out on the logic of this proposed structure which seems to be enforce upon us (community) and has cost a lot of "Leadership People" to move out....... Not much in these proposals is in the interest imho of the project but all in the interest of "control' (I fear I am seeing a Christmas Tree being created as done in multiple dictatorial states in the worlds in the past) and such situation is deadly for the project

(no offense , just mighty worried)

Leo Lammerink

[MarijkeS]

Leo, I am not trying to shut down a discussion, just trying to keep it on topic and effective.

I love your questions, they're very good question! I am eager to answer them but I am running of to a JUG meeting right now, I will answer your questions tonight when I get home again. Just wanted to provide a quick note for now, so you'll know.

(no offense taken at all, worries are good to air and ask the relevant questions about, that is what you just did)

[leolam]

As a community member

With all respect but you are speaking out loud with your head on as Treasurer of OSM and that makes me smile about your "as a community member" Yes you are a community member but you cannot speak as such..... You have a conflict of interest here and a very big one

Leo

[agrevet]

@leolam - would you kindly keep your comments a) not personal, and b) about the proposal being discussed in this forum thread?

Thank you.

[leolam]

@agrevet Can you not see the difference between concern and personal attacks? My remark re. Vik's post is no personal attack... feel so I feel sad for you since the remark I posted was related to the proposal and the post and not the person itself but his position in relation with the post (which is addressing the proposal). I am sure you will be able to see the difference....

Thank you

[dhuelsmann]

We can go into discussions about terminology used - OSM is a company, yes, but it is a not-for-profit company. There is a distinction between charity and not-for-profit.

Marijke: Oh, I think a discussion of the existing organization's registration in the state of New York has some validity for this discussion particularly when board members with fiduciary responsibilities fail to understand that their organization is still classified as a charity and is registered by the New York Charities Bureau and is subject to the Charities regulations. Even though OSM's registration type at the Charities Bureau is now NFP (Not For Profit), you can see from the following:

§ 90.2 Charitable organization
For the purposes of this Chapter, charitable organization shall mean an organization
that is organized and/or operated for charitable purposes, whether or not exempt from
federal income taxation, that is required to register with the Attorney General pursuant to
the EPTL and/or Article 7-A.
(a) The term charitable organization includes any domestic or foreign corporation,
unincorporated association or other legal entity, other than a trust or estate with a
charitable interest (defined in section 90.3 of this Chapter), that is organized and/or
operated for charitable purposes, including without limitation:
(1) Type B New York not-for-profit corporations;
(2) Type A, C and D New York not-for-profit corporations that are organized and/or
operated for charitable purposes;
(3) organizations exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to United States Internal
Revenue Code (the Code) section 501(c)(3), including wholly charitable trusts; and
(4) organizations exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to another code section
that are organized and/or operated for charitable purposes.

The laws of New York that OSM operates under are both of the following:

Article 7-A registrants are registered under Article 7-A of the New York Executive Law, which governs the solicitation of contributions (including grants) from New York State sources (including without limitation residents, foundations, corporations and government agencies).

Examples of Article 7-A registrants include but are not limited to fund raising professionals (professional fund raisers, fund raising counsel and professional solicitors) and New York-based or out-of-state charitable organizations, social welfare organizations, fraternal organizations, unions, business leagues, social clubs or other nonprofits that solicit contributions from New York State sources beyond their own membership.

and

EPTL registrants are registered under the New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law, which governs charitable activity in New York State.

Examples of EPTL registrants include but are not limited to New York-based charitable organizations, out-of-state charities that conduct business or maintain assets in New York, and New York trusts and estates that have a present charitable interest.

My concern continues that board members are not even reasonably conversant with the existing organization and appear eminently non-qualified to be structuring yet a new one!

[leolam]

Question to the wonderful people who wrote this beautiful document which is now here up for discussion:

1) What did you do to the Brian Teeman and Jean-Marie Simonnet submitted structural proposals?
2) What did you do with the reply by Nichols who has been such a wonderful contributor over the years? (http://www.dionysopoulos.me/refactoring-joomla/)

I have seen little of these extensive proposals/critics reflected by the document the 'team' submitted? Why?

Leo

[deleted user]

Leo, a couple of your posts are inferring that anyone who holds a role that includes a title of responsibility cannot speak a personal opinion that isn't necessarily within their capacity in that role. And to me that's becoming a major issue in the project, people assume that anything posted by an individual is posted as a representative of the project in their given role. That isn't the case; just because anyone in this thread has a title or role in the project does not mean that they only can speak from that position.

This is just an observation as a reader of the thread.

[leolam]

just because anyone in this thread has a title or role in the project does not mean that they only can speak from that position.

This is just an observation as a reader of the thread.

I accept that if I understand the remark right but it was too much of a coincident for me (!) that this was posted at this very point in the discussion. Of course any member of 'any' body' in Joomla can post her/his personal perspective. If I have given the wrong impression to Vik I do apologize

Leo

[masterchief]

1. Perhaps not in your design but the President certainly is in law. The current OSM by-laws specifically give the OSM president additional authority that does not apply to others

Only for calling or conducting meetings of OSM, and those are standard functions. There are no official "captain's call" in terms of decision making for the PLT or the CLT. When it does happen, it's not because the by-laws of OSM empower the President to do so.

[brian]

If only that was true

[MarijkeS]

Marijke you may want to try to shut down the BoD-role discussion and that is so sad since that has happened way too often in this Community..... "agree or get lost!"

Everyone who knows me can confirm I’m a very patient person, you really must get pretty disrespectful before I will ever tell you to get lost
I was not referring to the BoD-role discussion, I was referring to comparisons made between the current proposal and the history regarding the mambo days. I wasn’t there, the people who were there share different stories and memories about it - conclusion: It will be an endless conversation about who is right or wrong and people will not agree on it, and it will not move a discussion on the current proposal an inch forward. Hope you’ll understand that for me it doesn’t look efficient to go that path. (besides being patient, I also like efficiency).

So maybe to bring it into very simple perspective: Is my understanding correct that we will have a BoD who define course of action, all who do not agree in their reporting roles towards them can get fired or removed by them or a President who has the 'God' (zilla) powers?

Your understanding is not correct. The BoD will be chosen by the members of the organization (which are in the proposal the Team Leaders). In section 4.10.1 you will find exactly who can vote on the BoD. For every role there is a removal procedure defined in section 4. When you read that closely you’ll even see that the Board can not sent away a Team Leader (== Member of OSM), nor Team member. The President doesn’t have ‘God’(zilla) powers where it comes to ‘hiring or firing’ Team Members, Team Leaders, BoD or Officers.

Just a simple question: Who can remove OSM/BoD-members or more dismiss the entire Board? Did I miss that if yes please point me to the article in the proposal?

As the Board is compiled from the Department Coordination Team Leaders and the 4 officers, you can easily find in the document who can remove them from their position. It’s in section 4.6.4 and 4.7.3. If you compare that to the current structure, you’ll find that in the new structure it will even be more easy to remove a Director from the Board. Currently there isn’t a procedure in place at all to remove a PLT or CLT member. Not even other LT members are able to do so. For OSM, the current bylaws apply (bylaws 4.3 and 5.3), but since Membership of OSM is not implemented the way it should be it has almost zero value right now. It is exactly the thing we try to change and not only for OSM but for the entire LT. So in the new proposal removing them is possible, there is a procedure for it and the power to do so is at the Members of OSM (again being the Team Leaders of each team in each department). More power for the community then!

Who is overseeing the Board? (BoC-members - appointed 'external' commissioners ?) as in proper business what we seem to follow now?) Nobody controlling the Board? I am sure I have missed that but can somebody point me to (example) "how can the community get rid of a group of people (BoD) who's only interest is to protect their own (business) interests or create a "Miro-like" situation?" if such occasion arises?

The “Members of OSM” are in fact the overseeing body here. Membership of OSM should not be confused with Directors of OSM, this is not the same. Currently though as a temporary solution the Directors are the Members of OSM. Membership is a requirement that needs to be implemented. It came when OSM changed their certificate in 2010 to a not-for-profit organization type C. The Board at that time failed to implement that requirement along with the certificate change. OSM is eager to change this situation, a government team worked on several proposals before JAB14. During the joined summit before JAB14 these were presented to OSM, OSM informed the entire LT about this and decided was to form a team to prepare a proposed structure change. The reasoning behind that is obvious, along with better implementation of Membership and and overseeing body with more power over OSM, the same structure can be applied to PLT and CLT.

Again I do respect all efforts being made to make this a better structure but I am missing out on the logic of this proposed structure which seems to be enforce upon us (community) and has cost a lot of "Leadership People" to move out....... Not much in these proposals is in the interest imho of the project but all in the interest of "control' (I fear I am seeing a Christmas Tree being created as done in multiple dictatorial states in the worlds in the past) and such situation is deadly for the project

I can only refer to the post of Ole, whom I like to thank for his words. His sentence describes exactly my feelings:

Our history of leadership and organisational has always been with a core of control. If we can replace control with a healthy culture, we are on our way to a more sustainable org. and community.

Ole’s post means a lot to me, since he has been in the very same situation I am, the structure team is. Between his sentences I can read how he felt the responsibility of putting a structure in place, being one of the persons that need to take the decision what road to take when the project is standing at crossroads. Personally I do have as much respect and confidence in the people that put the proposal and current structure in place then, as I do have in the people that took that very same task upon them now. It was not perfect then, and it will not be perfect now. It moved the project forward to what it is now, but we’re again at a new crossroad and need to take the decisions the project can move forward on in the future.

[MarijkeS]

Marijke: Oh, I think a discussion of the existing organization's registration in the state of New York has some validity for this discussion particularly when board members with fiduciary responsibilities fail to understand that their organization is still classified as a charity and is registered by the New York Charities Bureau and is subject to the Charities regulations. Even though OSM's registration type at the Charities Bureau is now NFP (Not For Profit)

There is nothing new in what you are posting here for me Dave. I know those facts very well, and when it comes to understanding the law and I need advice, i have some pretty good people to turn to.
I think it was the board of 2010, that you were part of, that failed to understand the requirements that came along with the certificate change. A legacy we are working on to set straight for some time. You can argue about the time it takes us, I can only say if there was better documentation left by a previous board and implementation of membership were started at the time the certificate was changed, we'd probably would be way further on this road. But as we all do what we can, I leave you with the remark that I don't agree that discussing whether your assumptions about the knowledge of current board Directors are wrong or right, are efficient for this topic. Btw. It are Directors and not the members I assume you are talking about.

[NathanHawks]

It seems like the response to this proposal is, that the community is concerned about wrapping a legal wall around a body with the current deadline structure. People want to talk about many topics as conditions to this arrangement and a mature discussion about those topics just isn't happening in the free time over one month. On the other hand it took 3 weeks aka 1 week before deadline, before many people showed up to speak, and, we still have key volunteers and very key people generally, snarking without really getting their comments shaped and delivered with the legibility the context needs.

I think this proposal necessitates a conversation about what the place of OSM should be, what its purview should be, to what degrees its power is scoped-in vs scoped-out, etc etc -- in short, a bit more work than the people putting the plan to the community, anticipated would be necessary. It seems like it was assumed everyone shared the same reality picture or should unify momentarily to pretend to do so, and it's just not the case.

Clearly many people have demanded more transparency needs to go into this restructuring conversation about increasing transparency. I think that means dividing this discussion up into other deadlines in a chain before it is assumed this proposal is appropriate.

< 2 months is just not long enough to satisfy people that this isn't history repeating itself to any degree. OSM obviously needs the full confidence of the community. Please don't demand the community deliver that confidence on your schedule. Once again, IMO, the people who actually do things around here, have other things on their plates to enough of a degree, that being told to analyze business and law implications in this manner so quickly, is just abusive. Again, I'm not saying intentionally abusive, but abusive. These are the people who made Joomla and who are sweating about releases daily. The perception gap at play in order for the leadership group to not recognize that the volunteer group deserves the majority of control and that this discussion is taking place, already, in a climate where the volunteers are being told to hurry up and agree to a framed-in discussion about only what's on these pages, which happens to be a very major big deal but let's stay focused here people... it is downright disrespectful. Loosen the ties and breathe. Similarly, structure this discussion so that it can actually function correctly, and try to remember that the management in this case is not the controlling party, really. When you understand that management is the subservient department, and that it merely provides, to the overall volunteer community, its kind of volunteerism, just as everybody has their kind of volunteerism, it becomes easier to see certain calm, professional, official-sounding presumptions have framed this entire discussion as a steamrolling event before the words on the page even made it into the discussion. These silos aren't going to come down as a result of a conversation full of such barriers to effectiveness. Nobody wants to end in the conclusion that this proposal was designed to be ram-rodded into place, so, get past the perception problem that the people who work OSM biz can tell the volunteers what to do and when to do it to quite this degree, and that'll be progress.

Good news: you'll be making that decision in public due to volunteer feedback, which means the executive action to seek that feedback, was such a success that actioning it required a whole new paradigm regarding the basic cultural assumptions of the project. And that's what Joomla is partly about -- inventing its own idea of open source culture, along a path that learns from its own past, I would hope, at the very least?

[dhuelsmann]

Btw. It are Directors and not the members I assume you are talking about.

At least today, they are one and the same according to my understanding of the BOD's implementation of membership status.

[mandville]

. Currently there isn’t a procedure in place at all to remove a PLT or CLT member. Not even other LT members are able to do so

but the other way round is quite possible?

[porwig]

There is a process for removing current PLT and CLT members. It was agreed on and published following the JaB 2012 leadership summit.

Putting people on one team does not insure they will be unified, or that more silos won't emerge from the separate departments that elect them.

I wish that more inclusiveness and involvement from community members had been allowed during the past year for this initiative. I believe that would have resulted in both stronger support for the concept of change, and also would have allowed multiple approaches/options to be more fully researched and considered on the path to a final decision.

I am not confident the current proposal will deliver what it aims to. I am confident it will introduce more complexity and organizational/structural friction to our community, and I don't think that would be wise.

[masterchief]

I wish that more inclusiveness and involvement from community members had been allowed during the past year for this initiative. I believe that would have resulted in both stronger support for the concept of change, and also would have allowed multiple approaches/options to be more fully researched and considered on the path to a final decision.

At which point I have to ask what happened to the recommendations of the Governance Working Group?

[porwig]

I think the main point of the Governance Working Group (GWG) recommendations that has been brought forward to the current project-wide proposal, is the concept that team leaders will serve as OSM members (the ones who choose OSM directors/board members).

To clarify for those who may not be familiar with the GWG, it was formed with the intent to be a standing resource empowered to provide help, support and recommendations on governance issues. The first task was to deliver options/recommendations to OSM for a more community-oriented way of choosing OSM members, who in the by-laws are responsible for choosing OSM directors (board members). But the scope for that first GWG task was limited to OSM's role in the project's existing structure, and didn't include making the type of project-wide structure/organizational changes as seen in the proposal delivered by the Structural Team.

GWG worked on a number of options for that first task and presented them to OSM at JaB 2014 leadership summit. At that time, the expectation was to get some feedback from OSM, then open things up to the community for more input and feedback and refinement of options, then have OSM take a vote at JWC 2014 leadership summit, with the goal to implement the chosen process before OSM terms expired in April 2015.

After the JaB 2014 leadership summit, GWG was told that leadership appreciated our work, and had decided to expand on the idea of community-based governance for OSM, to also include PLT and CLT. GWG offered to help with that new task, but was politely told that was not necessary, and instead that a group of leadership team members would take care of that. GWG tried to pushed back gently on that, but the response was the same.

[tresan]

@Paul will try and sum up some replies based on your posts:

To me, the key questions to consider for those in leadership who will be voting on the final proposal are:
Will implementing this proposal bring enough potential benefits that it will be worth the certain significant new friction it will create?
Will implementing this proposal lead to more evolution and improvements, or will it lead to more frustration and stagnation?
Instead of considering only one option for change, would it be better to explore more ideas and approaches (including empowering community members to get involved), and also to consider potentially reaching out to external experts such as universities to consider their ideas and guidance?

The leadership collectively decided to opt in on the proces which was ongoing for only OSM - and both PLT and CLT at the time decided they wanted to be a part of the proces.

Based on the information discovered by the GWG and the models presented the stucture team (consisting of 3 members of OSM, PLT and CLT, 9 in total as representatives) worked their (our) way into a model that would constitute a compromise between the very different ideas, concepts and opinions.

As i have often stated its not possible to make a proposal that will make everyone 100% happy - some people in our community feel only the top 5 code contributors should have any say - and others (like myself) believe that we should have the most people possible involved in a democratic voting based structure.

So to find the middleground and be effective we decided to work our way into 1 proposal - that would be the balanced compromise that forfilled the major needs of our community and project while on the same time including the major aspects of what was found by the GWG.

The first proposal that was shared is far from what it is today - there has been many changes, many additions etc. and those who said it was cut in stone from day 1 should clearly see that, that was not the case - on the contrary the proposal proces has been a live and formative proces where input and feedback have been actively incorporated into the proposal.

Has some input / ideas not made it in? Yes - as said earlier this is a compromise its not possible to incorporate all ideas and all opinions we can only try and do whats best and find the middleground.

So to get back to your question - we never only considered one option - we decided on a formative proces to let the proposal grow into what it has become now from a first raw outline after JAB14 untill now - many details and concepts have changed in the proces and it has truely been a formative one.

At JWC14 the entire leadership gave a continued mandate to work with the proposal and continue the paths its on.

Had the earlier input phases let to a massive sway towards different elements in the proposal then i am sure the leadership would not have renewed its support if it disagreed at JWC14.

So please consider that there is not 1 proposal - there is 1 process and the input given into the proces is forming the final outcome of the proposal.

In the GWG we ended up with 7 (8) models and at the end we had some favorites, but noone of them was detailed enough or final enough to do anything - it was primarily an idea catalogue for OSM to consider to work on - this proposal proces is different as its goal is to deliver a final detailed proposal for a vote.

There is a process for removing current PLT and CLT members. It was agreed on and published following the JaB 2012 leadership summit.

Putting people on one team does not insure they will be unified, or that more silos won't emerge from the separate departments that elect them.

I wish that more inclusiveness and involvement from community members had been allowed during the past year for this initiative. I believe that would have resulted in both stronger support for the concept of change, and also would have allowed multiple approaches/options to be more fully researched and considered on the path to a final decision.

I am not confident the current proposal will deliver what it aims to. I am confident it will introduce more complexity and organizational/structural friction to our community, and I don't think that would be wise.

The proces started within LT's and with representatives of LT's then slowly and over a year it has expanded to include people working in working groups etc. and then expanded into the major community.

The proces has been as such to try and build support and input in phases that was managable in terms of creating an output.

By slowly expanding the circle on inclusion and building the proposal structurally up adding more and more ideas and fine tuning it was more realistic to get to a point where a final proposal would be an outcome.

This was also done because the overall major impact starts with the LT's and the LT's as a whole tasked their representatives to work on this - so naturally the first buyin before it was expanded needed to be from the LT's which tasked the assignment to the ST Working Group.

In the same way OSM (and you personally) did not task the assignment of the GWG to the entire community but to a working group and then presented its findings to OSM to have a chance of being effective in the work proces, which just is easier and better managable with less people involved to start with - i mean afterall thats why we have working groups and not just a forum post in here, because that normally brings very little productivity out of it.

What we do from the working groups is to report out whats ongoing and assure transparency and inclusiveness by asking for input and presenting ideas etc. - exactly as we have done over many rounds in this case.

As for leadership being united - you are right - people might not agree just because they are on the same team, but given the current isolation between OSM, PLT and CLT and the many teams that has liaisons from each LT, silobased objective and goals setting etc. its quite clear to me that there is a need to do it differently.

I also find the point that its far to easy to sit on PLT or CLT and decide things but never to have the responsibility - if PLT or CLT approves to spend money etc. they should also have the responsibility of such - those that serve legally as the protectors and directors of the project should also legally be responsible and the only way for them to be that is if they serve on the legal entity named OSM.

All models what so ever that operates with a "shadow" OSM where a Unified leadership is the real power and OSM is just a rubberstamp organ is insane - you can not ask people to serve on OSM and have the legal (and fiscal) liability and rubberstamp things other people decide.

The _only_ realistic solution is to make OSM ther place where representatives that today serve in all 3 LT's will be placed in 1 team where they have the real responsibility both legally and financially and are accountable by law to the choices they take.

So that part was rejected from the alternate proposals made by Brian Teeman and Jean Marie, and also in part from Duke's proposal - both of these proposals and many other singlular ideas etc. has been debated and considered for inclusion - a lot have been implemented and some havent - in the case of the concept of a unified leadership team and a "weak" OSM it just doesnt make sense from a legal perspective - the people who take the decisions should be accountable for them.

Lets expand our view and consider looking at organizations all over the world - non-profits, volunteer, for profit etc. all of them operate with 1 team in the top that has the legal and fiscal responsibility - why? Because you want to make sure its effective and that the people that has the legal power are also liable for wrong doings. This protects the overall survival of the organization.

[brian]

Thanks for saying that what I believe is insane. Way to go

[tresan]

You are welcome

But honestly - "trapping" people into become legally liable for other peoples choices is insane - noone should ever go to jail or be fined massively because someone else decided something for them - that is not a fair or normal model anywhere in the world.

There are many other concepts of adding in an "overview" or different checks and balances where someone can control or counter act actions of a board but the entire rubberstamp concept is not something anyone should ever work under - its not fair to put anyone in that situation.

[brian]

Anything is possible but after 10 years of operating that way I hardly think it is realistic

[rdeutz]

The first proposal that was shared is far from what it is today - there has been many changes, many additions etc. and those who said it was cut in stone from day 1 should clearly see that, that was not the case - on the contrary the proposal proces has been a live and formative proces where input and feedback have been actively incorporated into the proposal.

If we compare the document from 6 months ago we see that it is almost the same document. Just because the page number of the document doubled by repeating over and over again the same doesn't make it a new document.

I also find the point that its far to easy to sit on PLT or CLT and decide things but never to have the responsibility - if PLT or CLT approves to spend money etc. they should also have the responsibility of such - those that serve legally as the protectors and directors of the project should also legally be responsible and the only way for them to be that is if they serve on the legal entity named OSM.

All models what so ever that operates with a "shadow" OSM where a Unified leadership is the real power and OSM is just a rubberstamp organ is insane - you can not ask people to serve on OSM and bear the legal (and fiscal) liability and rubberstamp things other people decide.

The _only_ realistic solution is to make OSM ther place where representatives that today serve in all 3 LT's will be placed in 1 team where they have the real responsibility both legally and financially and are accountable by law to the choices they take.

But that is exactly what you are doing, Department Coordinators are only facilitates and all decision are made on team level.

[infograf768]

I DID know I was insane, but.... why make it public?

I do think the concept behind the "Local Communities Department" http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 0#p3287363 IS insane, but nobody replied.

Maybe my insanity was much heavier than that concept?