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