Progress Announcements from Governance Working Group

[NivF007]

On Jan 30, I posted http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=704&t=834040 speaking to the work being done by the Governance Working Group to open up OSM to community Membership.

I had participated in the group and made submissions.

It was my understanding that various proposed models would be put forward for public review.

Is it possible to get an update on progress of the GWG and timelines on when those models will be put forward?

Thanks,

Niv

[porwig]

Hi Niv,

The first major milestone for the GWG is unchanged - to present at least one proposed model to OSM members during their leadership meetings in advance of JaB.

The group's initial timeline did set aside time for a public review period of different proposed models in advance of JaB. But we are running into some time constraints, and there were also some concerns in the group about the time/energy it might take to explain/discuss points about the different models that had already been discussed and debated at length within the GWG.

So at this point, I can't say for sure if we will still have that public review in advance of the OSM review or not.

[NivF007]

Thanks Paul - interesting developments....

Opening up OSM to membership from the community, including the right to vote in OSM Directors, is to my mind, the number 1 most important priority for OSM at this juncture.

I'm concerned about the following

1) The potential for no public review ahead of presenting models to OSM for consideration;

2) The potential for only one model being presented; and

3) The current discussions and proposed ideas not being discussed and debated publicly.

In the meanwhile, much time has passed, and while we missed the opportunity to have a community of members vote in OSM representatives for the current elections - I'd very much like to see that the next elections of OSM Directors are based on membership votes - members as currently defined in the by-laws as persons who have contributed to OSM and it's projects in any form.

As you are the president and the 'lead' for this initiative, how do you feel we can correct the current course so that the 3 concerns expressed above can reasonably dealt with?

N

[masterchief]

Don't faint, but I agree with your point 3 Niv (I wouldn't worry about your point 1 or 2 - I think they will happen with without your input). I'd like to see governance treated like we do our source code - out in the open. I can tell you we had a private repo for just a few short months working on the first incarnation of the Platform and despite the best of intentions, we still got hauled over the coals for it.

[porwig]

@Niv - regarding your three concerns:

1 - GWG members are currently voting on our preferences for the different models. If there is enough time before JaB, I would still support having a step for public feedback before OSM's initial review.

2 - GWG hasn't decided what we feel should be presented to OSM at JaB yet.

3 - I agree with this concern and I am sorry that GWG hasn't been working more in the open. That was one of the initial requests/questions that I asked the members about when the GWG initially formed. I mentioned the possibility of using Github (based on an earlier suggestion from Andrew), along with other options to create a Google group or using the forums here. We couldn't get consensus about that, and then the suggestion came to work on Basecamp. Then there was some more discussion about how we could publish some or all of the Basecamp discussions, but we didn't get agreement on that either.

So I am sorry GWG hasn't done better with working in the open. But I don't think it's a major problem to give the GWG some time to work on and draft their initial set of recommendations.

I think the best case scenario is GWG will still ask for some public feedback in advance of JaB, and I think the worst case scenario is there will be a public update and request for comment following OSM's initial review.

[NivF007]

Hi Paul,

My apologies for the late reply as this one 'slipped through cracks.'

First of all, thank you for your extensive efforts on our behalves as OSM President.

I would also like to thank the Governance Working Group for their efforts.

Having participated in the GWG, I completely understand the desire to want to open the debate to the public and the difficulty in finding a consensus on the best way to do so - one that would ensure constructive discussion without devolving into circuitous arguments.

Out of respect for those efforts, I have refrained from putting forward my own model, but have given much thought as to how we could define 'contributors' to Open Source Matters as well as how we could ensure that those contributors have a vote in who represents their interests on the OSM Board.

It will be up to the new OSM Board to guide that process and transition - my hope is that transitioning to community-based membership will become in reality in the next year or so, and I am always open to actively participating.

I would also like to mention that I've found those on the GWG to be very intelligent, well-meaning people - there were some great discussions and points raised - I'm sorry that the community at large will never truly be able to appreciate the amount of thought, effort and deliberation that has gone into these matters to date.

Wishing you the best - and again, thank you so much for everything you have done on our behalves.

Niv

[NivF007]

Don't faint, but I agree with your point 3 Niv (I wouldn't worry about your point 1 or 2 - I think they will happen with without your input). I'd like to see governance treated like we do our source code - out in the open. I can tell you we had a private repo for just a few short months working on the first incarnation of the Platform and despite the best of intentions, we still got hauled over the coals for it.

Andrew, just to update you on recent events.

Duke (whom I understand is in a leadership role in the Governance Working Group) did contact me a few days ago and asked that I re-submit my model for a membership-based OSM (i.e. membership being open to contributors as defined in OSM's by-laws with voting rights).

I've submitted just a very brief synopsis (I think it's best to adopt a model of membership and elections 'in principle' first and then hash out the minutia later).

My understanding from Duke is that Sarah asked that the presentation be made to OSM first and allow OSM to be the one requesting community input.

I think this a sensible course of action.

I wish to also acknowledge that numerous different models for membership to OSM were under discussion by the Governance Working Group (some great ideas which I hope will get reviewed and put forward) - in a sense those where 'behind closed doors,' but anybody could request to participate.

Keeping in mind there are a lot of new Board members so it is obvious that they will need some time to acclimatize - I just didn't want to leave you or anybody else under the impression that nothing was happening.

I don't have further information but I am hopeful that once the Governance Working Group has had a chance to finalize their report and present to OSM that these matters will be completely open to the public for discussion under the initiative of OSM.

I'll keep my eye on this but I suspect that any further information on these matters will come from OSM.

N