Joomla Leadership Adopts New Structure & Methodology

[agrevet]

This is the forum thread to discuss the blog post "Joomla Leadership Adopts New Structure & Methodolog" which can be read here: http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leade ... ology.html

[JoeJoomla]

I'm looking forward to a leadership structure that will make it easier for everyone to get involved to participate in a meaningful way with regards to their specific talents and abilities. Let's support our developers and make it easy for them to do their thing and be innovative in a fun and safe environment. Stay positive, we all want what's best for Joomla and this will go a long way to taking us to the next level.

[JacquesR]

Thank you Alice and the Structure Team.

Many are very passionate about Joomla, and how they see the future. The proposal did pass with a substantial majority (a 2/3 yes-vote), but it is good that the team acknowledged the "wide spectrum of reaction to the proposal and resulting vote", and your recommendation that the concerns be looked at during the transition, as details are tweaked, and finalized.

[jwestley]

Thanks to the Leadership and New Structure Team!

Before this process began some of us were talking about the Joomla R[e]volution and it is not too late to begin that process. With the new direction and many community members moving on over the past 2 years I think we can begin with a fresh course of action and renewed energy.

As a JUG leader for many years in San Francisco I have been observing things very closely, and took a step back this past year to see how this process would shake out. Conflict can lead to harmony, but only if there is a strong willingness to "see" all angles and perspectives.

For some this process was about "winning" and "losing". To be so attached to a specific outcome, and in some cases to get so emotional, has led to quite a bit of suffering and bad blood. Some of that bad blood had been building for a while, and I was wondering when it would be let out, and in what form. Though I do not want people to leave the community, in this case it is good thing if they have no desire to work things out or understand what is happening within the bigger picture.

I like what Nicholas has to say in his latest Blog post, http://www.dionysopoulos.me/joomla-4-and-beyond-part-1/, and we need more vision and energy to move forward, where each of us can play a role in making Joomla the best it can be.

May each of us find a role, no matter what size, in this community and support this incredible process. It may be a bit rocky, but that is part of life and can lead to so much learning, creativity and in this case development.

Cheers!

[masterchief]

I think the Structure Team and all other involved need to be given a very big thank you for their hard effort - it is appreciated I'm sure no matter on what point of the agreement spectrum one finds themselves.

The main take home for me is the empowerment of the Team unit to make decisions and run with them. I think this is going to be critical for contributors to be able to just get things done without the usual, shall we say Joomla distractions.

The only concern I have is that A LOT of weight is going to fall on the shoulders of the Transition Team.

I do have one question and that is, since they were specifically mentioned, what are the concerns of the PLT? I am aware that while the vote passed overall, there was less than 2/3 support from the PLT individually. Given they are responsible for, arguably, some of the most important teams in the project, it would be good to know where they think adjustments are required.

And just out of curiousity, it would be good to know just what changes or modifications will be investigated as a result of the public consultation process.

I'm sure there is a lot to do and more information will come to hand once people have had a rest

Thanks in advance.

[NivF007]

I think the Structure Team and all other involved need to be given a very big thank you for their hard effort - it is appreciated I'm sure no matter on what point of the agreement spectrum one finds themselves.

+1 here!

As someone who has been critical of OSM in the past (I'll briefly state the precise reasons below), I'm very pleased to see a step in the right direction.

The primary reason I've been involved, and continue to be involved with Joomla is that it is "diverse community of contributors."

What we saw happen in recent years was that

a) The oversight committee for OSM was dissolved prior to any oversight provisions being put into place;

b) OSM Directors had given themselves complete control over elections (i.e. refusing to admit members (who are defined as people who contributed to OSM in any form) and therefore, those contributors were completely shut out from having any vote in OSM, the only legal entity which controls the Joomla project.

We then saw important project decisions being made by a small group who had full-control of OSM, yet those OSM Directors were not elected by the contributing members of the community.

This is not to say that those Directors had bad intentions, however, in my very strong opinion, ran counter to the spirit of what we are all doing here - no matter what level, or which way people contribute - one would certainly feel disenfranchised to know that a small group of people are making decisions for the community as whole - while shutting out that community from having a vote in OSM elections.

It is therefore great to see that the electorate will be broadened - at least to include 'Team Leaders.' This in itself, goes a long way to alleviate the perception that small group has, and will continue, to seize power over the project and the community.

Not quite were I hoped we would end up a year later (i.e. I'd like to see, for example, that anybody who has contributed to the Joomla code, documentation - or have participated as volunteers in any number of positions have a vote in OSM elections) - but definitely a wonderful step forward - so yes I'm fact very pleased with the progress!

I want to wish the Transition Team best of luck with their efforts - and I'd like to politely encourage OSM Directors to give some consideration as to how the spirit and intent of section 3 of the by-laws (the section which defines contributors in any form as members and the electorate) can be adhered to in order so that the contributors to the Joomla! Project can have a vote in future OSM elections.

For those who are interested, that section of the OSM By-Laws, which is intended to give 'contributors in any form' the right to vote for OSM Directors, is as follows:

3. ARTICLE III - MEMBERS & MEMBERSHIP

3.1. CLASSES AND QUALIFICATIONS. Any individual supportive of this corporation's purposes and not otherwise prohibited by any contract, law or regulation from abiding by the terms of these by-laws is qualified to become a Member of the Corporation. There shall be only one class of Membership.

3.2. RIGHT TO VOTE. Only Members in good standing shall have the right to vote at the Annual General Meeting of the Members on those items specified in Section 3.6 (below), as well as to vote on such other issues as the Board may choose to bring before the Members.

3.3. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP. Applicants qualified under Section 3.1 above, shall be admitted to membership will be determined on a case by case basis, at the sole discretion of the Board and/or Membership Committee. Any "contributor" to Open Source Matters who is supportive of this corporation's purposes and is not otherwise prohibited by any contract, law or regulation from abiding by the terms of these by-laws shall be eligible for membership. A "contributor" shall be any individual who has contributed to improving Open Source Matters and its projects in any form. [emphasis added]

3.4. NUMBER OF MEMBERS. There is no limit on the number of Members the Corporation may admit. [emphasis added]

[darb]

I think this is a good step forward and thanks to all Joomlers that have contributed to a new push forward for something better. Lets begin a new era for Joomla and let this be a new positive energy spread everywhere when we talk about Joomla!

Joomla is owned, controlled and developed by all of its community. Thats one of our biggest strenghts. We all have different skill sets, experience, culture and knowledge and lets take that into account everywhere when needed.

[noor7300]

This is a good movement that was sought from a long period of time, this will boost Joomla core team working and also inject motivation to the employees.

[NivF007]

In a joomla-dev-cms thread today entitled Content Publishing Bug

To answer the last question:
Currently, only OSM board members are members of OSM. No other members and no way of getting member without getting elected into OSM board.
With the new structure, every member of any Joomla working group will automatically become member of OSM and is allowed to vote.

At least that's how I understood it.

This is not how I understood the doc (regrettably - I don't have the link or copy at this time).

However, my interpretation (as I recollect) is that

a) only those appointed by OSM as Team Leaders will in turn be members of OSM and able to vote in OSM Directors;

b) members of any team won't even be able to vote their own Team Leadership (this will be handled by OSM Directors) - and members of teams will not be members of OSM, nor will they be able to vote for OSM Directors.

Can somebody kindly

a) provide a link to the New Structure & Methodology Doc; and

b) provide a clarification (i.e. is it the intention that every member of any Joomla working group will become members of OSM and allowed to vote?)

Thanks!

Niv

PS

Has the New Structure and Methodology Doc been revised since it was voted on?

[Soren Jensen]

Here is a link to the new Structure description.

[masterchief]

a) only those appointed by OSM as Team Leaders will in turn be members of OSM and able to vote in OSM Directors;

Team leaders are not appointed by OSM.

b) members of any team won't even be able to vote their own Team Leadership (this will be handled by OSM Directors) - and members of teams will not be members of OSM, nor will they be able to vote for OSM Directors.

As I read it, the team members elect the leader, and a leader can then appoint an assistant, but the team members have the right to veto the assistant appointment.

[NivF007]

Here is a link to the new Structure description.

@ CT Internet and Masterchief - thank you for your assistance in helping us understand this doc and get the latest versions.

A couple of key points (and I hope helpful suggestions) and of course, a huge thank you to all the people working so hard on this! I think all of you are doing an amazing job!

- There appear to have been a number of revisions, and revisions will be ongoing for some time.

- It would be helpful if the current 'master doc' (which I believe is the English) had a version number, and corresponding translations where linked and identified to that version number.

In the link provided above, the doc states

Please note: Translations are based on a previous version of the document shared with the community.

I though I had found the latest version - but I hadn't! I'm not sure if people reading the translated versions also have a way to verify if they are indeed reading the latest version.

At the start of this topic, could I politely ask that links to the latest version be provided and updated as new versions appear? I think this would be helpful - it would allow us to use those version numbers in our comments and feedback to keep the conversation on current issues.


For example, here are two versions - I can't tell on the face of them which is more recent.

1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0i ... HCJHo/edit#

2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U_r ... BKbEg/edit#

Table of Contents please:

Google docs makes it easy to incorporate and update a Table of Contents - these docs would greatly benefit from that. I offer my assistance to revise the docs to ensure a proper linkable TOC.

----

On to the question of elections - it seems to be covered in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U_r ... BKbEg/edit# at 4.10

4.10 Voting procedure
Except for the Team Contributor and Team Member positions, all other positions are filled by an election process.

4.10.1 Who can vote on which positions in a nutshell
Team Contributors have no voting rights
Team Members and Team Leaders can vote on a Team Leader position within the relevant Team
Team Leaders and Department Coordinators can vote on Department Coordinator positions within the relevant department.
Team Leaders, including Department Coordination Team Leaders, and Officers can vote on the Officer positions of the Board of Directors.
A person can only cast one vote on a position

I'm hoping for some clarification here, as there are 'non-Officer' positions on the OSM BoD, who votes for the 'non-Officer' positions and where is the election process (which paragraphs?) for non-Officer OSM Directors?

I can't seem to locate this info in the doc without a Table of Contents.

Again - thanks to everybody working so hard on this - great job to date and progress - it's clear a lot of effort and thought is going into this.

Warmest regards,

Niv

[masterchief]

At the start of this topic, could I politely ask that links to the latest version be provided and updated as new versions appear? I think this would be helpful - it would allow us to use those version numbers in our comments and feedback to keep the conversation on current issues.

I have actually suggested in the past that governance needs to be done via source control for this very reason. The idea of the community being able to make a "pull request" against legislation seems, to me, very logical and empowering. Anyway, I totally agree. It's really not clear what version of the doc got voted on, nor what changes (if any?) were made as a result of public consultation (and I think there was enough strong feedback to suggest their should have been some changes made).

I'm also waiting for the answer to a question I put on notice about what the concerns of the PLT were (I think one is obvious - their vote is extremely diluted compared to their importance to the project - development has gone from having somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 of a say to 1/7 or less - am I the only one seeing this is a concern for a software organisation?).

[brian]

am I the only one seeing this is a concern for a software organisation?).

No

[NivF007]

am I the only one seeing this is a concern for a software organisation?).

No

Hmm...interesting. Depends how you look at it. PLT wouldn't want MarCom making decisions on who should be team members for them and vice-versa - so each department has a great deal of autonomy for their respective scope of responsibilities and efforts - plus, within the organization (OSM) as a whole, each department is on equal footing.

I've also managed to find the section which clarifies the non-Officer Directors (i.e. how they get elected) - I think it's pertinent to this discussion.

Team members elect the Team Leaders, who become sitting OSM Directors.

6. Board of Directors
The Board of Directors will be comprised of the 7 Department Coordination Team Leaders + 4 Officers required by law.

Seems like an awesome approach to me.

So who should have the greatest say in OSM? You could say that the Driver is the most important part of any Formula 1 Team - and therefore should have all the say - and you could make a good argument for that - but I believe that your point of view on this is a reflection of how much you value contributions from other teams.

Given that Joomla is a 'software' company, is one programmer's contribution worth 5 times that of someone coordinating events or 3 times that of someone handling OSM's legal and financial affairs?

What would the proper ratio be?

(And before you get frustrated with me - I would have no issue, and even support giving double weight to the Production Team and interested to see if anybody finds that ratio objectionable or in-line with what would be appropriate for Joomla).

[brian]

Niv The decisions have been made and voted on and further discussion really is pointless. Sad but true

[smz]

Hello all!

I want to join my voice to those expressed by Niv and Andrew with whom I totally agree.

I would like to add that it seems to me a basic tenet of the laws of order that when a poll is done to approve/reject a document, such document should be officially attached to poll results and it should be timestamped/signed.

Any mods (amendments) to the original document should be equally voted or be void of effect.

I also think that the use of a source control system proposed by Andrew is perfect for working on a document draft, but a final cryptographically signed/timestamped version (very likely a PDF document) should be produced for the records (easier done than said).

=================

About the matter of the proposed/approved structure change one of my greatest concern is that candidates to the position of "Department Coordination Team Leader" (which, I remember, are elected by Team Leaders) have essentially control over their constituency through the creation of as many teams as they wish. This is a very un-democratic mechanism that has several affinities with the mechanisms of gerrymandering and/or safe seat creation.

Regards,

Sergio

[NivF007]

About the matter of the proposed/approved structure change one of my greatest concern is that candidates to the position of "Department Coordination Team Leader" (which, I remember, are elected by Team Leaders) have essentially control over their constituency through the creation of as many teams as they wish. This is a very un-democratic mechanism that has several affinities with the mechanisms of gerrymandering and/or safe seat creation.

I don't think that is going to be an issue.

Think about it. First you'd have to have a corrupt majority. Then you'd have to have somebody willing to form a team for the sole-purpose of 'safe seat creation' - and then you'd have to have team members on that superficial team - and after all that, that's all for one additional vote.

Here is the relevant section on team formation

Proposals are reviewed and discussed by the 7 Department Coordination Team Leaders at their regular meetings. They can request more clarification from the proposer and approve or reject a proposal. They will also decide which Department is most appropriate for the new team.

[masterchief]

Brian's right. Best to leave it and give it at least one full cycle. If it works, great.

[NivF007]

Brian's right. Best to leave it and give it at least one full cycle. If it works, great.

Agreed, and actually, now that the confusion is cleared up on the latest version of the new organizational structure doc and I've had a chance to review, I'm quite impressed - it's a high compliment to any programmer to label their solution as 'elegant' - and I think the same ought to be said for the solution that this team has arrived at with respect to OSM structure and governance.

Reflecting back to a year and half ago, I was privy to the wide range of proposed solutions that the Governance Working Group were presenting and discussing - and of all those solutions, IMO, this by far is the most 'elegant' - interestingly, very different from anything that was being proposed back then.

This team not only persevered, they've done a 'bang up' job - I can't imagine the amount of hours and dedicated effort - but I believe that all those hours will have proven to be well worth it and pay dividends for years and years.

Perhaps if I put it this way, the importance of these efforts to me (and I imagine many others) is more clearly demonstrated.

Involvement with Joomla, for me, has never been just about the 'code' - it's about the feeling and satisfaction you get being part of a diverse community of people who want to share their knowledge and be of assistance to each other - open-source is about collaboration, we all have skin in the game, we do our best to contribute and Joomla deserves an organizational structure which allows those who contribute to have ownership and a say in the affairs of the project.

I believe the outline of such a structure has been achieved.

My highest compliments and gratitude to all those involved in these efforts!

Niv

[Chacapamac]

Didn’t have time to read everything… but, I’m not sure to see any possibility of involvement for the people that use and promote Joomla everyday.
I’m talking about all the people out there that are the power users and protector of the name. The people that build their business on this platform. Web Builders, Extensions makers & all the big Joomla fans out there.

I’m sure tons of them will be interested to have a voice. Remember, these people are probably the only ones to procure you with a 365 view of the end results of the Joomla Team efforts. They are also confronted everyday with the shortfall of the platform and other CMS platforms alike.

Not using that pool of knowledge and ideas will be shutting off your only “real world” testers and best allies.

[Soren Jensen]

I’m talking about all the people out there that are the power users and protector of the name. The people that build their business on this platform. Web Builders, Extensions makers & all the big Joomla fans out there

They just need to join a team and they will have a voice. I am perfectly happy with non-contributors not having a voice.

[darb]

I’m talking about all the people out there that are the power users and protector of the name. The people that build their business on this platform. Web Builders, Extensions makers & all the big Joomla fans out there

They just need to join a team and they will have a voice. I am perfectly happy with non-contributors not having a voice.

I think you are right about this if you mean being out of the decision making process and that 3pds should care more and join teams to participate a little bit more with also the overall Joomla core development. Not just thinking of their own 3pds business where they earn some money but don't to anything for the vehicle that feed them.

But in the same time we have to listening to the needs of why people use Joomla and what's needed to improve from this feedback and there the 3pds are very important together with end users.

And how do we learn to priorities different views, goals and measurement of success together with them also?

is for example also the 30 million a good measurement to show on the front page and how does it contribute to visualize Joomlas market strength when only 1000 use it by other statistics in comparison? What if we use other statistics that are smarter to show for the whole Joomla community? For example statistics for different user groups compared to for example Wordpress etc..

*** Obs this is just one example for you to think about.. but again Joomla have to focus on the users - not only on the code and the content...

[NivF007]

I’m talking about all the people out there that are the power users and protector of the name. The people that build their business on this platform. Web Builders, Extensions makers & all the big Joomla fans out there

They just need to join a team and they will have a voice. I am perfectly happy with non-contributors not having a voice.

Let's be careful to differentiate 'having a voice' from 'having a vote.' The Joomla ecosystem is remarkably accessible to everyone to express their views and has a wonderful feedback loop - if anything, the project has too many communications channels, and view points are responded to by key team members promptly and thoroughly - the Joomla Project has always been blessed in this way.

The major issue, and improvement, that we've seen is with respect to who has a 'vote.'

Under the new structure, team members now have voting rights (HUZZAH!), so by joining a team one earns the right to vote.

Further, if there is a contingent that is not represent by a team, the new structure even has outlined provisions for team formation (see bottom of page 29).

I think that Ronni Christiansen's response from two days ago to questions of communications channels and transparency on [email protected] really addresses many of the questions relating to this discussion, so I think that it's helpful to quote in it's entirety here

Communication has never been as transparent as now - why?

1) The new volunteer portal has an overview of all working groups / teams including list of members, info on how to join, reports from the work they do.

For every individual you can see all teams they are part of and which role they have.

Teams are changed to consist of Roles that are Applied for and filled out - so a team consist of Roles and not Persons.

Once a person leaves the vacant position will be posted on the Volunteer portal so people can apply for it.

2) GLIP - Every contributor / working group member of Joomla can join GLIP - We have up to 5000 free accounts in our sponsorship from GLIP - we have not even used 500 yet

All working groups / teams should have a public and a private channel on GLIP - the public one is important to allow any one to seek them out and ask questions etc. while the private one is used for meetings etc. and day to day operation within the given team.

3) The coming structure reforms will mean that ANYONE on the planet that is a part of Joomla can join their national team in the 7th department for Local Communities and there vote for a team leader and that team leader will have voting rights for OSM Board of Director for the 7th Department as well as for the 4 Officers (President, Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary)

4) Onboarding everyone at the local level should make the path to go from local to global considerably easier and make it a clear an open process to all because:
a) They can see all of the organizational structure
b) They can see the positions / roles of all teams and all teams
c) All open positions in teams will be posted to the volunteers portal and they can apply
d) Anyone can contribute to a team even if not a yet in a team member position

5) GLIP is a communication hub - not a channel - it integrates and interacts with everything else thats ongoing - from project management over tasks and todos etc. the many integrations is what makes it a hub and not a channel.

6) All major information is posted to the Leadership Blog

7) More than ever leadership is using public mailing lists to debate and vote

So while we agree the journey is not done yet - id go as far as to say that it has never been better and the coming years time while what i write about above settles in and becomes the norm we will see that

I truely believe we are on a path that will expand our contribution base more than ever because we have structures to asure onboarding and inclusion at all levels.