Page 2 of 3

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:56 pm
by JacquesR
@Jenny: If you want to make public those who do not get elected to a team, then make that part of the rules/process up-front. It's not about transparency or secrecy (in my view), but rather about being considerate to those candidates who did not make it for whatever reason.

The aggressiveness of some members of the Joomla community, is already a reason why fewer people choose to make themselves available for such elections, and there's no good reason to subject those who did to get elected to more attention after a vote.

The number of people who were to be elected was equally stated from the start. With that in mind, the leadership members made their choice for those candidates they most wanted to be part of the transition team.

It would make a farce of the election process, the time spent by those administrating the vote, and the decisions made by those voting, if one were to throw out the result now and add all 9, simply because you were not happy with the result.

Jacques

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:08 pm
by Jenny
@Jacques - I think people are getting really tired of asking respectful questions, and then being accused of being aggressive. If you can point out one part of my posts that was not respectful I would be more than happy to apologize for any offense. Your repeated personal attacks on those you disagree with are bordering on being against the Code of Conduct. I fully understand that you don't like me. It is understood. You are under the obligation to be respectful regardless.

Many parts/rules/outlined steps/deadlines of this process from the beginning have been changed as the situation has changed. That happens in a large organization, when change that is this large in scope occurs. That you are insisting that the rules are the rules is a bit late in the process because the rules have been made up as this has gone along, and the discussion of the rules was not brought to the community for comment on the voting process after the number of nominees was divulged. I don't think I asked any question or brought up suggestion that was out of line or outrageous.

Can the others that were nominated make themselves known? Or have they been requested to not divulge if they were nominated?

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:18 pm
by JacquesR
@Jenny: I did not accuse you of being aggressive, and I have not made personal attacks in my reply, as you allege.

The vote is done an over with. The Transition team is in place. I'll state again: Throwing out the vote-result now, would make a farce of the election. There's no reason to do so, other that to please some who did not see their favourite candidate elected.

Jacques

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:31 pm
by Jenny
Every person I saw selected I am extremely happy with, they are all good solid outstanding people that I feel will do an excellent job. I am uncertain where you are going with your continued accusations and disrespectful remarks. I think it is a great team - I can say it again with more emphasis if you are still not understanding.

While in your opinion it would make it a "farce" to use your language to "throw" out the voting process. I think in my opinion it would only benefit to have the 9 that the community took the time to nominate thoughtfully as their representatives, all serve if they were willing. The point of this process is to help the project leadership be more representative of the project and the community it serves. It was stated that all candidates were more than qualified for the work of the team. That some arbitrary number was stated at some point in the process shouldn't have precluded this option of the 9 from being asked to serve. The process has been made up as it has gone along, because it is new, it has had moments of contention and reflection and refactoring. Why all of a sudden the gnashing of teeth over "rules".

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:47 pm
by dhuelsmann
Rules are rules according to some in this thread. However two of the four criteria listed at http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leade ... -2015.html don't seem to have been given much weight for at least one of the candidates nominated. Might be a good person to have on the transition team but does the leadership of Joomla always have to wave their own criteria without explanation?

Some of the criteria that will be used when evaluating Transition Team nominations include:

Community: the nominee should have a strong track-record of successfully collaborating with, enabling others and earning the respect of the Joomla! community.
Character: the nominee should have a history of acting honestly, fairly and openly in previous and current roles held, have demonstrated a general conduct of a professional and considerate nature on Joomla.org as well as other sites and media channels, and be willing to read and agree to abide by the Joomla Code of Conduct.
....

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 10:36 pm
by mbabker
If those two items were seriously considered, there would never be anyone qualified to be a member of the Transition Team. Name 9 people in this community that have rarely if ever "ruffled the feathers" of the people around them, which would put into question the two items Dave has pointed out. While you do your research, I'll grab my beach chair and beverage of choice.

As for disclosing other names, unless there's a gag order in effect, I'd say if those not elected want to make themselves known then go ahead. But, for better or worse, past operating procedure (so the assumed status quo) has been to not disclose all nominees in any activity (leadership nominations, JET, and now here as examples) and I think I agree with Jacques comment that if it wasn't stated up front that there would be full disclosure that it shouldn't change on the go. Even if other aspects of the whole thing have changed on the fly. I've been bitten twice in the last month by someone taking comments I made in a chat where I assumed the audience was a very small number of folks and publishing them verbatim without warning; my comments would have most assuredly been different had I realized there would be a public disclosure of them.

With that said, there is feedback in here that can be taken forward for future procedures. If we are really that concerned about disclosing a full list of nominees for everything that comes up, IMO it needs to be made known up front and there needs to be policy surrounding how to handle incidents when community members start questioning why X non-select was a non-select or we see a repeat of what happened during the restructure vote this year with regard to voting pressure. As long as everyone is operating under the same rules, and those rules aren't changing on the fly (or if they are at least make it clear), there's no reason we can't strive to improve together unless we want to continue making everything about who's got the biggest ego in the room.

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 7:05 am
by alikon
despite we can agree or not with the elected team members, for whatever reason,
i'd propose to suspend the judgement till the team do the stuff they has been elected to do
only then in my opinion, can be "constructive" to criticize,
in the meantime we should wish them to make their work in the best way for the our beloved project.

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 2:13 pm
by Webdongle
alikon wrote:...
i'd propose to suspend the judgement till the team do the stuff they has been elected to do
only then in my opinion, can be "constructive" to criticize,...
If the discussion was about their ability then yes that would be true. But as I see it the debate is about:
  1. The setting of rules then changing them and re-making their own rules as they went along
  2. Lack of openness by neglecting to publish a list of the nominees
  3. The total disregard of the rest of the community with the "we aren't responsible to anyone" attitude.
As a member of community that gives my time freely to commercial users as well as non-commercial users ... I am disheartened at the secrecy that shrouds the top echelons. Yes we need business professionals at the top of the tree but it appears of late that the efforts of the rank and file volunteers is being ignored.

Refusing to be open, using the privacy of individuals as an excuse to silence and being aggressive in replies to genuine questions ... is disrespectful to the rank and file volunteers. The moment a person applies (or accepts a nomination) for for a position ... that affects the community ... they forfeit their right to anonymity. Neglecting (or out rite refusal) to publish a list of nominees and making up the rules as they go along .... breeds suspicion among those who give their time freely.

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 7:45 pm
by MarijkeS
I'm confused about what rules were changed in the process of nominations and elections of the transition team that was outlined here http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leade ... -team.html and adopted as that by the LT with 23 votes cast and all in favor.

Non of those rules were changed along the way as far as I am aware. What did change along the way was the timeline set, since nominations took place during vacation time, in order to give more people the chance to submit their nomination the period was extended a little.
If someone can point me to which rule was changed during or after the process I am happy to investigate this.

As for the criteria: It says clearly "Some of the criteria that will be used when evaluating"
It doesn't say, if you don't meet each line in that criteria we will not consider you. It says it will be evaluated.
I think that is exactly what each LT member did when electing the members.

There will be no disclosure of candidates that were not chosen. It was clearly stated in the report on the volunteersportal that no information will be made public about that due to consideration to people not elected. That is not hiding behind privacy nor not willing to be transparent. The whole process has been as transparent as it can be. All the steps taken were published in public. It was clearly indicated from the beginning that voting would be done on a private ballot form.

Of course if nominees want to go public themselves, they are free to do so. When the structure team notified all the candidates about the results, they were only asked to keep the information for them selves until the blogpost with all the results was published on the 20th of september. I don't think it would make any sense to start debating why person x was chosen while person y wasn't. The electorate was made up of 27 people, all over the world, spread amongst three leadership teams, with different cultures, languages, gender etc. You can ask them all individually why person y wasn't chosen and why they chose person x, how they made that evaluation of criteria. Even then they're not obliged to answer that question, each person has it's own set of reasons to vote as one finds appropriate and we should all respect their private choices and trust they make them for the best of the project.

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:31 pm
by mandville
MarijkeS wrote:I'm confused about what rules were changed in the process of nominations and elections of the transition team that was outlined here http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leade ... -team.html and adopted as that by the LT with 23 votes cast and all in favor.

Non of those rules were changed along the way as far as I am aware. What did change along the way was the timeline set, since nominations took place during vacation time, in order to give more people the chance to submit their nomination the period was extended a little.
If someone can point me to which rule was changed during or after the process I am happy to investigate this.
Jenny wrote:The rules and guidelines for other parts of this process have changed repeatedly to be able to adapt as the project has changed during this process. Why was this limit of 6 people only a rule that had to be written in stone?

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2015 11:05 pm
by vamba
But it wasn't easier to provide immediately a comprehensive response to Leo? :D ;)

I can not pretend not to be sad about the news reached me today, as regards the waiver of Stefania.

Despite this ... I wish a good job to the new team.

(but, I personally believe, that we have all lost a great strong element) :(

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:48 pm
by montano
I was one of the 3 who did not make it. I don't know who the other two were.

Sadly, I find these pseudo-elections to be popularity contests. The result is we have a board of cheerleaders, but few who actually have skin in the game.

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:48 pm
by Jenny
Has Stefania reconsidered resigning or is there a plan to place one of the other nominees into the now vacant position?

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:23 pm
by rdeutz
Jenny wrote:Has Stefania reconsidered resigning or is there a plan to place one of the other nominees into the now vacant position?
Where did you get that?

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:31 pm
by Jenny
rdeutz wrote:
Jenny wrote:Has Stefania reconsidered resigning or is there a plan to place one of the other nominees into the now vacant position?
Where did you get that?
vamba wrote:But it wasn't easier to provide immediately a comprehensive response to Leo? :D ;)

I can not pretend not to be sad about the news reached me today, as regards the waiver of Stefania.

Despite this ... I wish a good job to the new team.

(but, I personally believe, that we have all lost a great strong element) :(
And this post on Google+
https://plus.google.com/+Joomlait/posts/fGCNMc3BTwt

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:35 pm
by rdeutz
@Jenny Thanks, totally missed it. :-(

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:38 pm
by Jenny
It's pretty disheartening when a very good longstanding volunteer gets discouraged enough to decline from the start because the process is immediately unfriendly to those volunteering. How hard could it have been to be flexible on this - the most uncontroversial of items to discuss such as the time of meetings?

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:28 pm
by 219jondn
@Jenny, I agree, it was very disheartening.

To add some context, the doodle both the Structure Team and Transition Team were asked to participate in had a range of 6 hours to choose from for a series of days - the 6 hours where all members of both teams would be in their "awake" time of the day. None of the other transition team members saw this as an attack on a democratic or transparent approach, it was obviously an effort for efficiency (why even make a time an option if 70%+ of the team is guaranteed to be asleep). All of the members of both teams (excepting Stefania) filled out the doodle and we now have a time scheduled for October 30 for our two teams to meet.

Several of us asked Stefania to at least stay until the Transition Team could start - we haven't even started yet - to give us a chance to implement the transparency that I know many of us on the transition team wanted. No reply was given (actually, the resignation was the only communication Stefania had with the team, not participating in any of the discussions the new team had been having)

I'm definitely not trying to blame Stefania for anything here. And I'm not even really trying to defend the Transition Team, since there is nothing to defend, we weren't the ones that set this up. But I am trying to add some context, because I know there is a lot of pressure for transparency, and it's something that I know many members on the Transition Team are very aware of, and committed to incredibly open transparency, myself included. I would hope that our team can earn the trust of the community, and I would hope that we can at least be allowed to get started before being brushed aside :)

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:44 pm
by Jenny
There is nothing to defend the Transition Team on, as you have said they haven't even started their work. That there has been such a colossal miscommunication issue regarding communication from the current Structure Team from the get go is concerning. From what I understand a reasonable question was asked and the answer back was less than satisfactory and a follow up question was ignored. If communication between the two teams is showing dysfunction, that needs to be fixed first.

Also that nothing has been mentioned publicly about this is concerning. People shouldn't have to search around to find out what is going on, and people shouldn't feel afraid of backlash for being honest or asking questions.

Can anyone answer if Stefania is reconsidering or if the vacancy will be filled with one of the other nominees?

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:48 pm
by 219jondn
I'm pretty sure she is not reconsidering. Several Transition Team members have reached out to her several times, and have gotten no responses.

(to clarify one point, the timeline went: Stefania's objection -> detailed answer/explanation from multiple contributors -> resignation, all within about a day, the only interaction she had with the transition team throughout the process)

I'm not sure what the process is for replacing, we've asked that and haven't gotten a response.

(tbh communication from the structure team is very slow. Right now the transition team is very eager to finally get started, we expected to be already started by now, and have been reviewing everything and getting ourselves in order so we can hit the ground running as soon as possibe)

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:58 pm
by Jenny
Thanks Jon for your considered and detailed responses. I appreciate it.

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:29 pm
by Jenny
Jon one more question: The Structure Team in their report states the hand over of the Transition to the nominated Transition Team was to be Oct 1st. If you all aren't meeting together until Oct 30th that is a huge discrepancy in terms of what is in the report notes and what is actually happening. Is there a reason why it is a full month off of timeline?

For reference here is the last report from the Structure Team: http://volunteers.joomla.org/reports/11 ... tember-9th

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:30 pm
by 219jondn
my apologies - this is my fault. My mind is already operating in October for JWC planning :)

The meeting is on September 30. In two days. Sorry for the confusion.

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:33 pm
by Jenny
:D thanks Jon. I was a bit confused.

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:33 pm
by ste
Jenny wrote: Can anyone answer if Stefania is reconsidering or if the vacancy will be filled with one of the other nominees?
Hi Jenny,
as I wrote twice to the Transition Team last week, I resign.
I'm not reconsidering, so probably the vacancy will be filled with one of the other nominees.

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:44 pm
by Jenny
I'm so sorry Stefania. I think you would be a great asset to the Team.

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:07 pm
by JacquesR
@Jon, thanks for providing the context. (it avoids negative speculation)
Again, good luck to the team with the task ahead.

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:47 pm
by Helvecio
montano wrote:Sadly, I find these pseudo-elections to be popularity contests. The result is we have a board of cheerleaders, but few who actually have skin in the game.
Would you kindly care to elaborate, please?

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:18 am
by alikon
Can someone share some udpates on the work-in-progress of the Transition Team?

Re: Introducing the Transition Team

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:24 pm
by Protopia
I come to this discussion rather late, and my interest in all things Joomla is waning as I move towards retirement from the business that I create a Joomla based web site for.

However I was so surprised at the level of vitriol and dis-trust shown in this thread that I have decided to comment on it here.

As an outsider I have the following comments to make:

a. People seem to have lost sight of the degree of common ground that everyone who posts here actually has - everyone is driven by what they think is best for Joomla.

b. The conversation seems to be split between those trying to heal rifts and a few individuals who appear to have become so distrustful that they see evil and duplicity in every word said and are continuing to disrupt rather than heal - even though they, as everyone else, wants to do what is best for Joomla.

I urge these individuals to try to give peace a chance.