Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizational

This board is for discussions about joomla.org blog posts.
Forum rules
Global Rules
Locked
User avatar
brian
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 11760
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by brian » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:30 am

I agreed with you on that J-M so we are clearly both insane.

What is really interesting to me that it was clear to me in a 5 hour conversation this weekend that the team of co-ordinators are the project leaders which makes them the decision makers in the future of Joomla. A body with just 1/9 developer representative gets to decide the future of Joomla just makes no sense to me at all for a software project
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/

User avatar
NathanHawks
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace
Posts: 1900
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:17 pm
Location: Washington state, U.S.
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by NathanHawks » Thu Apr 16, 2015 2:26 pm

At JWC14 the entire leadership gave a continued mandate to work with the proposal and continue the paths its on.
In a properly-set-up system, leadership obeys mandates, it does not set them.
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
What, was this conversation not already insulting enough toward the developers? Ten years the devs have kept Joomla moving forward. I think comments like this will only lead to a fight and a fork.
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.
These are seemingly-baseless insults toward a large number of people in this thread, put forward in a voice as if they were logical assertions. This probably isn't really the venue for that. Not only that, but it adds weight to my impression that all arguments in favor of this proposal have been full of bafflegab and aggressive posturing.
Save time - hire me for your Joomla to-do list! http://nathanhawks.us/joomla

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

Post by agrevet » Thu Apr 16, 2015 2:41 pm

Hi Jean-Marie,

To respond to your questions:
infograf768 wrote:Will a language/team represented by a unique translator/interlocutor ( we have a few) have the same voting power as a language/team with one or many local communities (organised each around a different site)?

Within a language/team, will a single individual have the same voting power as an entire community? For example a single French or Italian person versus all joomla.fr or joomla.it ?
Each team, regardless of its size, will have one vote in the department. The teams in the Local Communities Department will be organized by country, with the possibility of sub-teams within a country group if more than one language is spoken.

The Local Communities Department can serve many functions: to help people find their way to local communities, to facilitate the formation of JUGs, to serve as an accessible entryway to help people get involved in international teams, to be a resource for teams like marketing to get insight on culture-specific messages, and also to become a future recruitment platform for localization, etc. The list goes on and on with many possibilities, and works both ways: to strengthen local communities, and also increase involvement in all levels of the project.

I'm not sure I understand your second question. Do you mean can a single person on a team cast a vote on behalf of a community, or in some way represent or speak for an entire community? Let me know if I've got that right or wrong - thanks.
Alice Grevet

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

User avatar
brian
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 11760
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by brian » Thu Apr 16, 2015 2:47 pm

The biggest problem with the department is that instead of ensuring that Joomla is all together as a whole and ensuring that all departments and teams fully consider and take into account the many different languages and cultures in our community it marginalises them and pushes them to a side. (I can just imagine the outcry if other groups were pushed into their own department based not on their function but an accident of birth
"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

Post by porwig » Thu Apr 16, 2015 2:53 pm

Hi Ronni -

Thank you for giving a thorough response to some of my points - I really appreciate that.

I also want to re-state that I really appreciate the big effort and good intentions from you and others on the Structural Team. I have issues with the specifics in the proposal and the process chosen for developing it, but not with the intentions of those involved.

I want to comment on one point you made (I hope I am summarizing correctly), which is that the current proposal should not be thought of as just one proposal, because ideas from other approaches and proposals have been merged into the current proposal.

For an initiative like this, I think it would have been better (maybe not quicker or easier, but better) if different proposals were allowed to be researched/debated/revised by their supporters (including incorporating ideas from other proposals if they want), but in the end they should be left to stand on their own, to be judged on their merits by those who are taking the final vote.

During this nearly year-long process, there was only one short window of time (during the working group feedback phase) when alternate proposals were encouraged to be shared. We saw proposals from Duke, Brian/JM, and also indirectly by Nicholas Dionysopoulos (on his blog), but to be fair they weren't given much time to be developed or improved by additional research/feedback.

To summarize: I think it would be better if those taking the final vote were offered a choice between a variety of optimized models that represent the best thinking and different points of view from the community.

That's how we did it in the Governance Working Group with our first task, and I believe this initiative would now be in a better (maybe not quicker or easier, but better) position if a similar path had been chosen.
Paul Orwig

User avatar
Jenny
Joomla! Champion
Joomla! Champion
Posts: 6238
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by Jenny » Thu Apr 16, 2015 2:59 pm

rdeutz wrote:
tresan wrote: 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.
There has been no significant change in the document other than word and page count. There is still no more clarity as to how the proposal will actually improve responsibility, accountability and transparency (all the words that are repeated to the point of nausea but never put into practice). There is nothing concrete in the proposal that assists with contribution, or encouraging contribution.

There are words stating that everyone that wishes to contribute has to agree to a Code of Conduct, but yet no Code of Conduct exists, acknowledge the Grievance Procedure but it doesn't exist, and disclose Conflict of Interest per a document that outlines what is or is not conflict of interest, but again this document does not exist. An Ombudsman office has been thrown in without any documentation or detail, but they are supposed to be responsible for mediating conflict or issues - how can they when no foundational documents on policy exist to make a determination?
NathanHawks wrote:
At JWC14 the entire leadership gave a continued mandate to work with the proposal and continue the paths its on.
In a properly-set-up system, leadership obeys mandates, it does not set them.
Quite right. The GWG should have been tasked with moving forward with suggestions instead of being ordered disbanded, by the people who would then take over to create a self serving structure that gives a lot of people new titles/badges, but does nothing to actually improve the quality of enjoyment of contributing, or nor does it encourage or empower openness and inclusiveness of the community.
Co-author of the Official Joomla! Book http://officialjoomlabook.com
Marpo Multimedia http://marpomultimedia.com

User avatar
rdeutz
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:50 am
Location: Germany - Aachen
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by rdeutz » Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:46 pm

It is often stated that the new structure is more democratic, more transparent, more clear, more from everything. I think there are some good ideas in it, but it lacks on substance. It is not finished and some parts are missing totally. If someones thinks he/she need to answer „the document is only a starting point“ please don’t do so. That is a joke and a bad one. If you are asking me as a leadership member to vote on something I will not vote on an idea, you are not getting a free ticket to change the concept after I voted. Make a solid concept and we can vote on it, you didn’t and further more the structure team said that from the beginning. „Nothing is build in stone“. If we compare the document we had 6 months ago, it is almost the same. So why we all have spent so much time I have no idea.

I don’t like the concept at all, I wrote about it a couple of times. I thought a bit more about what is when it is implemented. I looked more closely to the department coordinator role (dep).

Situation: we have two teams in one dept. they are close to make a decision.

a) Team A knows that Team B is affected so Team A get’s in contact with Team B, they figure it out how to move forward. Team A makes the decision all are happy.

Dep needed: Not at all

b) Team A makes a decision, don’t asked the affected Team B, but the made a good decision so that Team B has no issues with the decision. All are happy.

Dep needed: Not at all

c) Team A makes a decision and the affected Team B is not happy. So we have a conflict. What should we do. Ask the dep he/she can make a decision … but wait … not his/her job. He/she can try to find a compromise. Failed. So what now? If dep makes a decision he/she can only loose, because one Team is not happy whatever is the decision. And further more he/she isn’t qualified to make the decision, nobody can keep track with all the teams and do this not as a full time job. Yes on the way they where added some assistant dep’s but it’s still a single point of failure.

Dep needed: Might be, but that isn’t fun and helpfully

It will create a typical corporate structure, when the bosses don’t have a clue but make decision. You are not creating a group that has the slightest chance to lead the project, you are going to create "authorities". That might work when you have something people need like money to pay bills, but we are here in an open source project 100% volunteer based. There is nothing you can give people when you don’t have the trust.

Jenny wrote more about the missing parts so I don’t need to repeat it.

Two aspect I haven’t seen discussed so far :

1) Transition plan
Is there any transition plan prepared or did people think about it. I think that is a big part and we need that before we vote finally about the change. My guess is that change will take a year or two. So I am wondering who from the team that brought us the change will be there to implement it.

2) Right time
I will not paint a bad picture but I don’t think it is the right time for such a fundamental change. We see some other CMS getting more and more marketshare and we are not so bad but it could be better. So do we have the two years just playing with structure, doing elections and give some people nice new badges and titles.

Let us pick the good parts and implement them, Rome isn’t build on one day.
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
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

Post by tresan » Thu Apr 16, 2015 4:36 pm

NathanHawks wrote:In a properly-set-up system, leadership obeys mandates, it does not set them.
Agreed - today leadership has no mandate from the community - its self appointed and elected.

So how is changing that a bad thing?
NathanHawks wrote:What, was this conversation not already insulting enough toward the developers? Ten years the devs have kept Joomla moving forward. I think comments like this will only lead to a fight and a fork.
I fail to see how pointing out making a rubberstamp structure relates in any way to developers - it simply doesnt.

The concept of having a legal entity in the top of the organization that just signs things they are legally and fiscally liable for and could ultimately go to jail for is out of this world - it doesnt exist anywhere in the world and the concept (not the people) is insane.

You can not ask get a bunch of people in front of your organization like puppets that should just sign on things - the people that has the power (hopefully elected and representative with a full mandate) should also have the legal and fiscal responsibility.

If those people are developers - thats great - but letting someone be the "strawman" for a real leadership is not ok or anything we should in any way condone.
NathanHawks wrote: These are seemingly-baseless insults toward a large number of people in this thread, put forward in a voice as if they were logical assertions. This probably isn't really the venue for that. Not only that, but it adds weight to my impression that all arguments in favor of this proposal have been full of bafflegab and aggressive posturing.
Again i got no clue how you can see this as insults - its going for the ball (the concept of a strawman / rubberstamp leadership) and i answered Paul in detail on the questions he had.

@Paul It may or may not create a different outcome - in the end i dont think it will change very much when it all comes down to it we are in a situtation where there will never be a perfect solution that makes all satisfied - if you look on the comments to this thread you will find people that absolutely do not think we should let all team members vote over to people who wants to be a part of the proces and vote on it over to other people who wants even more democracy etc. in the end these positions and ideas are not possible to cover in any one proposal - they are too widespread.

@All There are many changes in the documents from the Local Communities Department (which i find nothing less than FANTASTIC (and disagree with JM and Brian) over to the new department leadership teams that will help to coordinate the work (from inputs and inspiration from proposals by JM & BT, Duke, Paul etc.) to an added advisory board over to many other elements, adjustments and inputs - there are many substantial changes and additions - yet there is still 1 OSM at top - as thats the legal entity and there are still departments and there are still teams but the details and inner workings on so many levels are completely different.

Lets get realistic the organization _is_ OSM thats the legal name of the official organization.

The leadership (elected) should be sitting on the OSM Board level where the actual responsibilty and liability is.

If you hate that concept you will never like this proposal no matter how much it changes - but i hope you do understand why this is something that can not work out in any other way.

Also i really dont get it - OSM is an organization - the people in the board will ultimately be those who are elected by the people who contribute in the teams and working groups - so if this is the basis of the entire model - that we actually get those leaders we give a mandate (by electing them) then how bad can it be?

Dont we end up with exactly those leaders we deserve when we elect them ourselfes?
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: 11760
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by brian » Thu Apr 16, 2015 4:51 pm

f you hate that concept you will never like this proposal no matter how much it changes - but i hope you do understand why this is something that can not work out in any other way.
As demonstrated by numerous people and ignored there are alternatives. There really is no point at all in you asking for feedback and for discussion as your mind is clearly completely closed
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/

User avatar
mandville
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 14802
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

Post by mandville » Thu Apr 16, 2015 5:57 pm

some people are already using phrases they have taken from this proposal as if it was already in place. eg. the original wording for teams on VJO and in other places.
while i like the idea of this "department" how will it actually work?/ there are already TT that d/wont work with their countries jugs, there are jdays that are not organised by jugs and jugs that d/wont get involved in their countries TT not all jugs are apparently posting on the events site (as they see that for jdays only perhaps) and why would a TT see itself as associated with events.
this grievance procedure is something that needs major consideration. it should already be in place.
not everyone is on the same playing field or should they be. all teams operate differently by nature. why should some teams have leaving interviews and others not. why do some teams have liaisons apparently running the group and doing things without the TL being told? perhaps these should be included in the procedure manual. can we have an index to the document so i can find "how it affects me" without falling asleep reading apparently unrelated stuff.
well done to those who tried/trying to suggests complications with the proposal document. lets hope you dont hear the famous "good question, but lets look it at a different way" or "shut up and change the record".
Brian - thanks for the clarification on glip.
HU2HY- Poor questions = Poor answer
Un requested Help PM's will be reported, added to the foe list and possibly just deleted
{VEL Team Leader}{TM Auditor }{ Showcase & Security forums Moderator}

User avatar
Jenny
Joomla! Champion
Joomla! Champion
Posts: 6238
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by Jenny » Thu Apr 16, 2015 6:04 pm

tresan wrote: If you hate that concept you will never like this proposal no matter how much it changes - but i hope you do understand why this is something that can not work out in any other way.
Why is feedback being asked for if it is already decided that it cannot be any other way? It appears that all of this is now simply posturing for the appearance of inclusiveness and transparency (again the words repeated over and over again, while never being put into actual real practice.)
tresan wrote:today leadership has no mandate from the community - its self appointed and elected.
It does have a mandate from the community - To facilitate the creation of the Joomla CMS and Joomla Framework.

Currently it is self appointed. The proposal suggested when taken along with the transition document creates the exact same scenario of self perpetuating self appointment. There is nothing new being added in here to create a more bottom up structure that empowers community members.
Co-author of the Official Joomla! Book http://officialjoomlabook.com
Marpo Multimedia http://marpomultimedia.com

User avatar
ot2sen
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 10421
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:58 am
Location: Hillerød - Denmark
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by ot2sen » Thu Apr 16, 2015 6:06 pm

An observation made from reading this feedback thread is that people who generally are opponent towards a change are those feeling that their feedback isn´t listened to.
But it is visible that the structure team members do reply and have a dialogue on the feedback given.

They specifically worked on this important structure change for a considerable amount of time and evaluated multiple options in depth.
We who are providing feedback are doing it mainly on basis of gut feel and own experience.

Another observation made is that the majority of those who object in this thread are with few exceptions all former members of one of the leadership teams.

So when other community members prepare to give their feedback here, they should have in mind that: Michael, Robert, Brian, Paul, Tonie, Andrew, Radek, Roberto, Jean-Marie, Dave and I, all had our chances to change things.
Most of the mentioned oppose to the proposal they see because it doesn´t match their perfect image of an organisation. It is ok to disagree, to some extend.
It may not match mine, nor the Structure teams perfect image either, but for me personally I see its overall pros more that the cons of the details, and it is a step ahead.

This matters because it means that all us former leaders all had our chance to create that new organisation, but neither of us succeeded in making the more democratic approach happen.

The current leadership in representation by the Structure team is now in fact about to actually make that democratic first step happen.

So all I am asking is for any community member giving their feedback, to not put too much weight in what us oldtimers gave of feedback until now.

We didn´t make it happen, but your own voice and feedback could be the key to the future organisation. :)
Ole Bang Ottosen
Dansk frivillig Joomla! support websted - joomla.dk
OpenTranslators Core Team opentranslators.org

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

Post by porwig » Thu Apr 16, 2015 6:33 pm

"don't attack the man, attack the ball"
- Ronni Christiansen
Paul Orwig

User avatar
brian
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 11760
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by brian » Thu Apr 16, 2015 6:52 pm

Ole that assumes that we are trying to create a democratic structure and makes assumptions on the definition of democracy. Speaking only for myself I was always aiming for a meritocracy not a democracy
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/

User avatar
Jenny
Joomla! Champion
Joomla! Champion
Posts: 6238
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by Jenny » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:04 pm

I don't agree with you Ole. Those that are commenting have shown value, commitment, integrity and care. We wouldn't be commenting if it wasn't important to us. To say our feedback should be given no weight or consideration is short sighted and rather disheartening. Why would you discourage contribution? Isn't the whole point of this to encourage contribution, and to retain community members that give value, show commitment and care?
Co-author of the Official Joomla! Book http://officialjoomlabook.com
Marpo Multimedia http://marpomultimedia.com

User avatar
ot2sen
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 10421
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:58 am
Location: Hillerød - Denmark
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by ot2sen » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:25 pm

It was specific for those having served in a leadership position, and have had their golden oppertunity to make that difference. We didnt. The community is huge and us 15-20 loud old ones have to leave room for not always having backward compatibility ;)
Suggesting we (read: old LT members) should allow room for others to share their thoughts, just like you did which is great.

The community as a whole should indeed voice their concerns or support.

I agree with your inputs Jenny. Those concerns you raised are rather important to have defined on the final doc. I would expect the Structure Team to also acknowledge that and make it happen.
Ole Bang Ottosen
Dansk frivillig Joomla! support websted - joomla.dk
OpenTranslators Core Team opentranslators.org

User avatar
brian
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 11760
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by brian » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:35 pm

So we should not comment? Really? That;s what you call open feedback?
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/

mbabker
Joomla! Hero
Joomla! Hero
Posts: 2211
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by mbabker » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:36 pm

I never signed on to try and change things. Big or small. I actually didn't agree when it was proposed after JAB14 that there was a need for a major restructuring, a detail that others in this thread will try to downplay with statements like "the entire leadership team made a mandate to move forward with X". Yes, a majority voted to look at potentially changing the structure, but the wording since day 1 has always been communicated publicly as "we are going to change, no other option, and this is how we are going to change, no other option". It was a concern while I was a PLT member when this was proposed, and it is still a concern today now that I don't have that badge. And honestly, without delving into details that I will treat as privileged considering where the discussions occurred, I don't think a lot of people necessarily agree with the verbiage some have used to describe this proposal or even support it.

Ole, in some ways I take offense to your comments. It seems as though you're saying that those of us who were once on the LTs are looking for ways to protect the structure we worked in and that we oppose the proposal in favor of the good ol' boy network we have today. Let me make it clear, I'm not opposed to change if it makes sense. I've said it here, I've said it in a blog post last October, another blog post earlier this year, and many times in social media. I don't oppose change, and I see how some issues are addressed in this proposal. But to me I have more items about this proposal I would -1 than +1, and given our options are to either accept this or accept the status quo, my only choice is to accept the status quo. Quite frankly, my number one complaint is I don't see why we have to adjust the entire project's structure and culture to address legal issues that OSM itself created. There are ways to restructure the leadership to address issues of accountability, voting leaders into roles, and other people problems that nobody wants to address because it affects their status in the good ol' boy network without putting a foundation in charge of the open source project. Let's equate this directly to our corporate competitors, does WordPress Foundation or Automattic have the final say in the direction of the open source project known as WordPress? Does Acquia or the Drupal Association have the final say in the direction of the open source project known as Drupal? In this proposal, Open Source Matters, Inc. (or whatever name you want to slap on it) has all control of the open source project known as Joomla, and quite frankly that's worrisome given the project's history and the mentality of so much of our community.

If that makes me an opponent of change, too bad. I'm more concerned about what's best for the project than making friends. We already screwed up enough creating the perception that OSM is in charge of CLT and PLT and that the OSM President is the top person in Joomla. Don't believe it? Look around these forums, or mailing lists, or how OSM itself "markets" themselves; even the last proposal from the capital committee aims to place the OSM brand ahead of Joomla.

Lastly, this proposal is leading the project down a road of failure. Already, OSM has failed to hold a proper election cycle and now nobody is clear on the status of the board of Open Source Matters. Now CLT is not renewing terms because they're waiting to see what happens from this!? HELLO!?!?!? We can't drop everything and wait for this to be forced through, operations MUST CONTINUE AS NORMAL UNTIL DICTATED OTHERWISE. Or is this a sign the proposal has already been decided to be carried forward with, in many ways the same claims people in this thread made toward the Framework and the LGPL license?

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

Post by agrevet » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:41 pm

The minutes from yesterday's Structural Team meeting have been posted:

http://volunteers.joomla.org/reports/81 ... il-15-2015

Regards,
Alice Grevet

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

User avatar
NathanHawks
Joomla! Ace
Joomla! Ace
Posts: 1900
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:17 pm
Location: Washington state, U.S.
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by NathanHawks » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:57 pm

I think everyone here has good intentions toward this project that we could all agree with if they were worded in common language.

But I also think there is a corporate culture encroaching in places where it doesn't see itself as a problem. I think certain mentalities are accidentally being dragged in with the roles corporate culture normally associates with those mentalities.

I think the problem here is that the non-dev leadership just needs to see itself as another batch of functionary volunteers, and then proceed accordingly.

The devs are the only people here who can basically do all this without the rest of us. Joomla would matter far less, without all the rest of us, but without the devs, the rest of us are about as important as a TV show community for a TV show that's been cancelled.

Everyone else could probably do well to recognize the leadership's also-valid frustrations that it probably takes a forest fire like this, before they start getting enough helpful feedback in order to avoid totalitarian styles of decision making. Hence my comments that the things being learned about this process, here in this thread and prior to it, need to be worked-around and accounted-for in the process of deciding the process, as headdeskable as that sounds to those whose only mark of making progress is to get jobs like this, done.

Still, when I post a wrong response in the forums, Iman or sova corrects me and thus the process works as intended. Every volunteer has their function but is accountable to the community. Did you know my lifetime total payments for working for The Joomla! Project are only about $30 worth of tip-jar? Here I am, doing almost all of this for free, many hours per week, just like most everyone else. I think industrial psychology has to be acknowledged as the bugbear in the room. Some people are accidentally measuring the worth of others based on whether they can jetset due to their Joomla involvement and based on whether their job is corporate or volunteer in nature. We human animals are prone to industrial psychology but we are also able to recognize it and resist its effects on our behaviors. I am explicitly stating this is an accidental effect of the structure and the cultures traditionally attached to the management power exchange - not something deliberate.

And on that note, I want to thank the volunteers who happen to have leadership roles, whose patience has been tested by the communications gremlins and the perception elephants as they attempt to do their jobs as they understood them. I think this is shaping up to be a very productive conversation that obviously needed to happen.
Save time - hire me for your Joomla to-do list! http://nathanhawks.us/joomla

User avatar
JacquesR
Joomla! Enthusiast
Joomla! Enthusiast
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by JacquesR » Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:09 pm

Michael, a few comments on some of your last post:
mbabker wrote: Let's equate this directly to our corporate competitors, does WordPress Foundation or Automattic have the final say in the direction of the open source project known as WordPress? Does Acquia or the Drupal Association have the final say in the direction of the open source project known as Drupal? In this proposal, Open Source Matters, Inc. (or whatever name you want to slap on it) has all control of the open source project known as Joomla, and quite frankly that's worrisome given the project's history and the mentality of so much of our community.
I feel that your comparison is wrong since you equate OSM of today, with an OSM of the future, and compare today's OSM with the WP or Drupal structures.

A future OSM (or Joomla Inc. if that makes some feel better), according to how I read the proposal, indeed controls the open source project know as Joomla. And the future OSM is made up of Directors who are elected by the teams (or team leads) of that same open source project called Joomla.
So the leadership of Joomla/OSM is elected by the volunteers of Joomla/OSM in a future structure.

Please help me understand how that could be a problem to you? I may be missing something obvious.
mbabker wrote: We already screwed up enough creating the perception that OSM is in charge of CLT and PLT and that the OSM President is the top person in Joomla. Don't believe it? Look around these forums, or mailing lists, or how OSM itself "markets" themselves; even the last proposal from the capital committee aims to place the OSM brand ahead of Joomla.
That comment reminds me a bit of the type of negative comments (gossip) of 5 years ago. Perhaps it's because I was part of OSM that I can't fully comprehend these recent resurgence of negative feeling (or sometimes outright hate) that some feel towards OSM, but I do feel that a lot of it is not logical... possibly historical, from a time (pre-2010) when OSM had a perceived (and real) iron fist in dealing with legal and TM issues.

The Brand argument reminds me a bit of that same kind of argument people used against you and the Framework/Platform team/devs. Those strongly against Joomla being anything other than a CMS were also using that Brand argument.

Even if what you say is/was a real problem (and I honestly don't believe it's an issue to any Joomla user), it's again taking a perceived/real issue of today, and projecting it on a future organizational structure.

And no, a future structure would not miraculously fix all problem, but in this example, a future board (elected by all Joomla structures) could make Brand/PR decisions that really represents the whole structure.
mbabker wrote:
Lastly, this proposal is leading the project down a road of failure. Already, OSM has failed to hold a proper election cycle and now nobody is clear on the status of the board of Open Source Matters. Now CLT is not renewing terms because they're waiting to see what happens from this!? HELLO!?!?!? We can't drop everything and wait for this to be forced through, operations MUST CONTINUE AS NORMAL UNTIL DICTATED OTHERWISE. Or is this a sign the proposal has already been decided to be carried forward with, in many ways the same claims people in this thread made toward the Framework and the LGPL license?
Your inference here does not seem logical to me. Why would the LT string us along, and disrupt their own election/renewal processes only to have a pre-determined vote a few months down the line?

As far as I'm aware, there's a time-line they are working on, and that timeline (If I recall correct) was in fact extended previously to give more chance for community input.


@rdeutz: Robert, you mention that the proposal "lacks on substance" and it seems therefore you feel you cannot approve something like that. If having all the details worked out in advance was the requirement that previous leadership teams followed, then the fork would not have happened, and neither would the PLT and CLT leadership teams have come into being in 2009.

More detail and greater clarity should of course be the goal (to avoid some of the making-things-up-as-we-go-along of the past), but I feel this proposal has far more detail and substance to it than what was there for any previous proposed or affected changes in Joomla/OSM structures.

If the leadership does approve a document, and there is substantive changes after that to the document, then it would of course require another vote. (or that's my assumption)

That said, I do like the idea of implementing such a big change in steps, and first starting with a few changes that are easiest to implement. As long as people, on both sides of the debate, accept that the steps and path might change along the way.

mbabker
Joomla! Hero
Joomla! Hero
Posts: 2211
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by mbabker » Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:36 pm

Voted leadership is not an issue to me. Joomla operations being absorbed by the trademark owner or an external group period is an issue. The proposal makes Joomla contributors members of Open Source Matters to fix an issue they created for themselves. Joomla is now 100% dependent on that separate entity. Today, Joomla is self governed in all areas minus those which require a legal status to act in. And that's where OSM comes in. No, it isn't a rubber stamping organization, it doesn't blindly do what Joomla asks. It provides support to the project and with a properly defined board, could serve as a level of checks and balances to the project. What stops the OSM board from being the minimum required individuals and membership for the legal organization being our existing legal and financial teams, while leaving all other operations as they are today in the hands of the open source project? A perception that the legal entity is just there to rubber stamp stuff?

If enacted, this proposal is a shift in the project's culture. Everyone is Open Source Matters contributors, that's how the document is worded. Who actually buys that outside the current team in OSM who performs their role in a suitable manner? 5 years and not one day have I called myself an OSM contributor. I used to be a proud JOOMLA contributor, but honestly, that's even questionable these days since the project is a joke beyond our community. And considering few here make a big effort to be involved outside Joomla's small circles, there are few who can convince me otherwise.

I can see I've been again written off as trolling, so I'm done flapping my gums for now.

User avatar
masterchief
Joomla! Hero
Joomla! Hero
Posts: 2316
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:45 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by masterchief » Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:54 pm

It would make sense to put renaming OSM to include the Joomla name on the table because I think that's a huge perception blocker.
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.

User avatar
brian
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 11760
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by brian » Thu Apr 16, 2015 10:36 pm

Just throwing this out there to counter the rubber stamp comment. There are many open source projects who have their assets held by an external company and use that company to handle finances on their behalf and they dont have no problems that Ronni and others describe. So it is perfectly possible to do and has many benefits which is why we built it that way and others have already explained

You can look at Debian as an example which uses Software in the Public Interest, Inc. for
Accepting donations
Holding substantial assets
Holding domain names
Holding trademarks

http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/debian/
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/

User avatar
dhuelsmann
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 19658
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:50 am
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by dhuelsmann » Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:23 am

ot2sen wrote:So when other community members prepare to give their feedback here, they should have in mind that: Michael, Robert, Brian, Paul, Tonie, Andrew, Radek, Roberto, Jean-Marie, Dave and I, all had our chances to change things.
Ole I would take offense that we didn't open things up more democratically during our period of serving Joomla in a leadership role but I can already tell ... what I and others are saying isn't making a difference.
Regards, Dave
Past Treasurer Open Source Matters, Inc.
Past Global Moderator
http://www.kiwaniswest.org

User avatar
masterchief
Joomla! Hero
Joomla! Hero
Posts: 2316
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:45 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by masterchief » Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:57 am

brian wrote:There are many open source projects who have their assets held by an external company and use that company to handle finances on their behalf and they dont have no problems that Ronni and others describe.
I actually wish, in hindsight, we'd gone the conservancy route with OSM. There are two major problems with OSM as I see it:

1. The politics of making it work are a distraction to producing software.
2. For some unknown reason when you get to be on OSM, you are suddenly branded as someone that is not to be trusted and you are most certainly not part of the Joomla community anymore (dumbfounds me every time).
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.

User avatar
masterchief
Joomla! Hero
Joomla! Hero
Posts: 2316
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:45 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by masterchief » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:14 am

dhuelsmann wrote:what I and others are saying isn't making a difference.
That's passive-aggressive nonsense. It's a request for feedback, not a debate about a motion on the table. In additional, if the team decides to discard your feedback, that does not mean you are being ignored (though I will say I have deliberately ignored you Dave for other reasons until now).

That said, if your major contributors (of which I am not one anymore, so take my 2c however you like - but if you want to do a Node version of Joomla, I may be interested again) are making the same types of noises, I'd be inclined to take such things into serious consideration.
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://eddify.me
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.

User avatar
infograf768
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 3:47 pm
Location: **Translation Matters**

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by infograf768 » Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:56 am

agrevet wrote:Hi Jean-Marie,

To respond to your questions:
infograf768 wrote:Will a language/team represented by a unique translator/interlocutor ( we have a few) have the same voting power as a language/team with one or many local communities (organised each around a different site)?

Within a language/team, will a single individual have the same voting power as an entire community? For example a single French or Italian person versus all joomla.fr or joomla.it ?
Each team, regardless of its size, will have one vote in the department. The teams in the Local Communities Department will be organized by country, with the possibility of sub-teams within a country group if more than one language is spoken.

The Local Communities Department can serve many functions: to help people find their way to local communities, to facilitate the formation of JUGs, to serve as an accessible entryway to help people get involved in international teams, to be a resource for teams like marketing to get insight on culture-specific messages, and also to become a future recruitment platform for localization, etc. The list goes on and on with many possibilities, and works both ways: to strengthen local communities, and also increase involvement in all levels of the project.

I'm not sure I understand your second question. Do you mean can a single person on a team cast a vote on behalf of a community, or in some way represent or speak for an entire community? Let me know if I've got that right or wrong - thanks.
The issue here is simple: the voting power. Who votes for the Department leader who would be on OSM board.
If I understand well, for you, a Team is made of all volunteers from the same country speaking the same language and there is one vote per Team.

Case 1: Therefore, if I personally want more voting power, I just have to declare myself as French Basque speaker + Breton speaker + Provençal speaker, etc. This will give me as many votes as languages I pretend or do speak, therefore as many teams...
Then If I make an alliance with other one person/Teams —East Syriac, Cherokee, Corsican, Ongan (Andaman language spoken by 300 people), etc.— I could theoretically get a majority and decide of the Team Leader! Even if other Teams like Italian, Dutch, French, etc. do represent many more people involved in joomla directly or indirectly.

Case 2: Let's say we have a French (fr-FR) volunteer who is not member of joomla.fr. He will be member of the French (France) country team. One voice. Therefore if joomla.fr wants to have the weight that corresponds to its real community, the only way would be to get 50 people from joomla.fr to sign as volunteers (easy enough) in order for the French (fr-FR) team to be correctly represented...

As I said in my earlier post, this makes no sense. We do NOT need a specific Department. We need specific communications channels to better collaborate, whether it concern languages (various kind of translations) OR country (various types of events) AND increase involvement.
Jean-Marie Simonet / infograf · http://www.info-graf.fr
---------------------------------
ex-Joomla Translation Coordination Team • ex-Joomla! Production Working Group

User avatar
brian
Joomla! Master
Joomla! Master
Posts: 11760
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Leeds, UK
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by brian » Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:01 am

+100 J-M
"Exploited yesterday... Hacked tomorrow"
Blog http://brian.teeman.net/
Joomla Hidden Secrets http://hiddenjoomlasecrets.com/

User avatar
rdeutz
Joomla! Explorer
Joomla! Explorer
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:50 am
Location: Germany - Aachen
Contact:

Re: Community Feedback on the Proposal for a New Organizatio

Post by rdeutz » Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:21 am

JacquesR wrote: @rdeutz: Robert, you mention that the proposal "lacks on substance" and it seems therefore you feel you cannot approve something like that. If having all the details worked out in advance was the requirement that previous leadership teams followed, then the fork would not have happened, and neither would the PLT and CLT leadership teams have come into being in 2009.

More detail and greater clarity should of course be the goal (to avoid some of the making-things-up-as-we-go-along of the past), but I feel this proposal has far more detail and substance to it than what was there for any previous proposed or affected changes in Joomla/OSM structures.

If the leadership does approve a document, and there is substantive changes after that to the document, then it would of course require another vote. (or that's my assumption)

That said, I do like the idea of implementing such a big change in steps, and first starting with a few changes that are easiest to implement. As long as people, on both sides of the debate, accept that the steps and path might change along the way.
It might be better as documents we have had in the past, but that doesn't makes it good one and something we can vote on. Compared with the development it is as we would release a CMS but hadn't figured out how we save the data.

I am all for changing something to be in a better situation, Advisory Board a good idea (an old idea we called it years ago elders board) , Ombudsman: I am for it. Better communication yes, for sure. But not at one go. We made this mistake two times as we moved from 1.0 to 1.5 and from 1.5 to 1.6 without a solid concept and a lot of b/c breaks.

I am really wondering who will be implementing the change. I would expect when people vote yes that they are also responsible for implementing it. Some people already leaving or there terms are ending soon. So I hope we will not end in the situation of a approved structure change without people implementing it. I can only speak for my own, I am not available to implement this change. I would help to implement some parts of it, but if the project is going for the big bang, I am out.
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


Locked

Return to “Community Blog Discussions”