But you might wonder if at least one aspect is pre-ordained by his followup on what the group should be working on:
- Details for new board, including:
- What would a good name for the new board be?
- How might OSM by-laws need to be changed (or new by-laws written) to accommodate all recommended changes?
- What would the responsibilities for the new board consist of?
- How would the initial new board be formed?
- How would new board members be chosen?
- What would terms a/o term limits be for board members?
- How would board members potentially be removed?
- Details for new committee structure, including:
- What would be a good number of committees?
- What would the responsibilities of each of the new committees consist of?
- Which committees would current leaders and working groups be assigned to?
- How would the committees and board best stay in contact and work together?
- What are some project-wide best practices that could potentially adopted, such as:
- Openness and transparency
- Setting goals and priorities
- Terms and term limits for team managers
- Finding multiple volunteers to have backups for key team roles
- Documentation of key team roles
See anything there that looks like it is addressing whether or not they actually go through with the changes?
Of course not. Additionally, Javier Gomez (one of the members of the working group and an OSM board member) proposed:
Do you agree that the proposed changes to our project’s leadership >structure in the last leadership summit can strengthen communication and collaboration between teams, as well as improve oversight and accountability for all contributors and teams?
This was responded to by another working group member Jeremy Wilkin as follows:
I'm not sure we need that question, because they already voted on the proposal so it is implied at least a majority agree.
That is the farthest from the truth I have seen so far.Remember this from Paul Orwig's blog on September 29, 2011?
It was agreed at the JLS that it is important to be open and transparent about this proposal, and also to engage our community by inviting input and feedback. Input and feedback from you and other members of our community will be taken into account before decisions would be finalized or plans put into motion to implement any leadership structure changes.
Way too much emphasis on Stage 2 of the proposal and almost nothing on Stage 1. Surprised? Not me. I have been saying all along that this was pre-ordained and the decision made by at least some of the leadership to go forward without any consideration to the feedback provided by the few members of the Joomla! community brave enough to face the third degree guaranteed to be dished out to anyone who dared to offer a modicum of disagreement to the leadership.
The Joomla Project Structure Working Group implemented a poorly publicized survey of:
- Members of the Community
- Web Developers
- Extension Developers
- Members of Joomla Working Groups
It was all supposed to be completed by April 1, 2012. Subsequently a push was made to complete on April 3rd. Based on the responses I found in the answer spreadsheet, there were only five responses by April 14, 2012. Here are some of the responses:
Term limits are needed to ensure COC and leadership members don't start to think of the project as theirs and so that new ideas and perspectives are constantly introduced.
People removed from Leadership privately for inappropriate reasons. If there is public voting to bring in a new member, removing a member should at least be announced.
Many times, leadership seems very out of touch with and too often hostile, with community. This is especially true about community driven initiatives which frequently are perceived to be an attack.
Some members of leadership are notorious for speaking negatively about community members whom they feel are enemies or attacking of the project. This attitude needs to evolve into consideration of what those with different ideas think or at a minimum, ignoring opinions that are not valued.
Leadership membership should increase. It is too closely held. Too often, it is said that the leadership does not have time, resources to help but they don't increase their ranks, either, and are the only ones who can do so.
Doesn't look like everything is coming up roses, does it? I suggest Joomla! leadership listen to their constituency rather then trying to make the constituency listen to them or continuing to just flat ignore legitimate issues.
For those of you who still don't get the significance of the proposed leadership changes, Paul Orwig made a presentation at Joomla Day New England on March 31, 2012. The following two slides presented by him show the before and after:
I encourage all of you to read the two petitions linked here and sign them. It is time OSM heard from its constituents!
To create link towards this article on your website,
copy and paste the text below in your page.
Preview :
Comments
Sorry, as much as you would like to think so, none of the responses are from me. As I said, Andrew, Quoting David Huelsmann:.
True - not representative but then again, neither is the response from the leadership about this proposal.
Term Limits - agree and the new structure deals with this.
People removed - I only know of people removed for appropriate reasons, but if the will of the people is to know about dirty laundry, so be it.
Out of touch - sometimes fair, sometimes not but it goes both ways. I would call this blog out of touch with the real needs of the Joomla Project.
Speaking negatively - classic case of equivocating "disagreement" with "personal attack". I firmly believe if people are being disruptive, they should be called out.
Leadership has no time - well it's true in one sense but just adding leaders doesn't necessarily solve the real issue.
You left out that this person thinks leaders should put in 10-20 hrs a week. While I know some do, it's unrealistic to "demand" that of volunteers (is the person making walking the talk I wonder?).
How about we address "Joomla the product doesn't meet my needs" eh?
I'd be really interested in knowing who you would consider meets your very high standards on the board of OSM (s'ok, I know I'm off your list). Care to share some names?
So, here we are back to the word games again. If you wish to characterize following their own bylaws, following the laws of the State of New York, following up with and keeping their promises as very high standards then you are right. So far no one on the OSM board would qualify today. Based on your willingness to countenance such failures as misdemeanors, then you too would fail the test.
Forgive me, I already knew your opinion of the current OSM board (not shared by me in case you'd missed that in any of my comments too). I'm asking you to put forth the names of people you trust to live up to your standard. I want to know who would be on *your* OSM board imagining you had the power to select it.
I don't care who is selected for the board. I care if they follow laws and promises and listen to feedback. If they can't do that then they don't have any right to be a member of the board.