Re: [OSCOM] Plan: OSCOM Revised (3 weeks for feedback)

On Mar 7, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Sandro Groganz wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> please find my suggestions below - far from being complete!

Very well done, thanks for taking the time to write all of this and  
synthesize the input you received!

> Let's use this to start a thorough discussion and brainstorming.
>
> In 3 weeks, I will summarize your input (see schedule below).

I second your timeline.  Let's consider it authoritative unless  
several people say otherwise.

Comments (and snipping) below...
> 4. (2 weeks): planning of projects
> - priorities/schedule
> - responsibilities
> - next actions

Can we pick a specific date for the election of the new board?  I  
think everybody would feel better knowing this was on the way.

I'll focus my comments on the Organization section.


> - Organization: Define Scope and Goals -
>
>
> To establish OSCOM as the number one umbrella organization for all  
> issues related to Open Source content management, we need to  
> broaden its scope.
>
> OSCOM should not only be about CMS, but include any kind of Free  
> Software and Open Source content management application. This  
> includes, Wikis, Weblogs, etc.

I've long wanted to alter the name, as it is always confused with  
OSCON.  Perhaps we use this a chance to send a new signal and solicit  
inputs for slight or large alterations of the name.  For example,  
"OSCOM.org" would clear up the OSCON problem *and* signify the  
community focus.

> The wider scope makes perfect sense, given that CMS integrate Wiki  
> and Weblog functionality and vice versa.
>
> Seen from that perspective, it is one of the tasks of OSCOM to  
> continuously define what is Open Source content management and  
> bring the players in this area together.
>
> The main goal of OSCOM is to foster innovation in the Open Source  
> content management segment by creating the potential for  
> information transfer between all involved persons.
>
> To formulate the main goal in a different way: What is the unique  
> selling point of OSCOM? It is the potential of becoming the main  
> information hub for knowledge transfer within interest groups of  
> the FOSS CMS segment (e.g. software projects, consultants, solution  
> providers, etc.).
>
> In this segment, information is critical for success. In this  
> respect, OSCOM can be of benefit in two ways:
>
> 1. Distribution of commoditized knowledge, which is information  
> that has become standard knowledge in our segment. This could for  
> example be a Wikipedia page explaining what is WebDAV?
>
> 2. Distribution of first-hand information, which is information  
> only available to an exclusive group of persons. Typically, such  
> information is exchanged face-to-face at conferences, during talks  
> or in private talks.
>
>
> - Organizations: Define Involved Groups -
>
>
> We'd like to involve the following groups in the Open Source  
> content management segment:
> - developers
> - project managers
> - consultants
> - journalists
> - vendors
> - solution providers
> - users/customers
> - others? (feel free to add)
>
> This is a list of projects which could be involved:
> - MediaWiki
> - TikiWiki
> - WordPress
> - FluxBlog
> - Drupal
> - Typo3
> - Joomla!
> - Magnolia
> - Plone
> - others? (feel free to add)
>
>
> - Organization: Define Organizational Structure -
>
>
> In essence, we do not change the organizational structure, we just  
> define roles more clearly as well as the processes of participation.
>
> The Apache Foundation-like structure of OSCOM is ok, but has been  
> anticipated as too exclusive up-to-now. What is needed is a rather  
> loose interpretation of the existing organizational structure, to  
> give it a more inclusive spin and to allow more groups and persons  
> to be involved with a low barrier of entry.
>
> We want to keep the OSCOM foundation as a legal entity, mainly for  
> the purpose of financial administration. This includes that final  
> decision-making concerning financial matters is bound to the rules  
> defined in the bylaws.
>
> The OSCOM foundation thus only forms the very basic legal realm for  
> the OSCOM community. All non-financial decisions should be made  
> within the community, based on defined processes. These processes  
> ensure that the community is actually in power of decision-making  
> and that decision-making is effective.

+1

> - Organization: Bylaws -
>
>
> Unfortunately, oscom.org is not accessible currently. Thus, I was  
> not able to go through the bylaws and relate them to this plan.
>
> I assume, that most things stay untouched by this plan.  
> Nevertheless, if we see that certain things should be changed in  
> the bylaws, we should do this now, because we have enough momentum  
> to change things.
>
> The major change I propose is that only the president and the board  
> members are legal members of the OSCOM organization. The "normal"  
> members, are not a legal subject of the OSCOM organization any  
> more. This way, we strip down the organization to its core to have  
> it deal with financial and legal matters only. (Following a  
> suggestion by Paul Everitt)

Just to be clear, I don't think I said only board members were legal  
members. :^)

Under this plan, who would elect the board if the board constitutes  
the only members?

> We need someone in Switzerland, as OSCOM is there registered as a  
> legal entity, who can fix issues for us.

Yeh, that's going to be an issue.

> - Organization: Define Roles of President, Board, Members, Community -
>
>
> The roles of the president, the board, and the members are in  
> general laid out in the Bylaws, but we might need to redefine or  
> clear them a bit.
>
> The president of OSCOM is in charge of representing OSCOM. He  
> clearly needs to distinguish between his role as the OSCOM  
> president and any other affiliations. Whenever he acts within his  
> role as the president, he needs to follow the principles of OSCOM  
> and pursuit the organization's goals.

Michael always did very well at this.  I never thought of him as  
Wynona or Lenya.

> The board is only in charge of decision-making when it comes to  
> financial issues. Other then that, the board members are part of  
> the OSCOM members and community. I suggest that the board members  
> should represent the groups of OSCOM, thus it should include one  
> representative from each group (see above).

I'm not sure how well that will play out.  Getting some one just to  
meet a quota puts us at risk of never getting quorum, as we might  
have a significant number of people that don't care.

We need people that care.  If two of them are from the same project,  
that's fine with me.  IMO, all these claims of OSCOM being little  
fiefdoms don't match whatsoever with my experience.  The main driver  
has been, when people put in energy, things happened.

> OSCOM members are persons who actively participate in or already  
> contributed to an OSCOM project, be it maintaining the events list  
> or organizing a conference, etc. The term "member" is ambiguous,  
> because it could be understood as a member of the OSCOM community  
> or a member of the OSCOM organization. We need to make clear that  
> someone is only called a member if these two criteria meet:
> - the person is currently or has been active in the past
> - and the person is elected by other members as a member

Let's choose a different label for people that aren't in the legal  
entity: "Contributor".

> The OSCOM community simply comprises all persons interested in  
> OSCOM, actively or passively.
>
>
> - Organization: Define Decision-Making -
>
>
> The basic formula is that we want bottom-up decision-making.
>
> Existing members (which includes board members) can recommend new  
> members.

Aren't board members the only members?

> - Organization: Elections of President, Board, Members -
>
>
> The president could be elected every year, just like the Debian  
> project does for its project manager. The goal is to ensure that  
> the most dedicated persons become the president of OSCOM.

Well said.

> The board should consist of representatives of the interest groups  
> in the FOSS CMS segment. This means we need to define the interest  
> groups and perform elections for each representative as well. There  
> should be elections for each board member. A board member should be  
> elected by the OSCOM community, i.e. active and passive persons.  
> Elections could be every 2nd year and not overlap with elections of  
> the president for more then 3 months. Anyone can run for the  
> elections, you don't have to be a member.
>
> Members can be nominated by other members and elected by 1/4 of the  
> members as long as there are less then 40 members. Max. 1/5th of  
> votes can be negative. With more then 40 members, it is sufficient  
> to have min. 10 positive votes. Given there are more then 40  
> members, you can become a member with min. 10 positive and max. 2  
> negative vote.

I'll wait till the answer above about legal members.

For me, this is the big question mark: is there sufficient interest  
in the mundane work of administering a legal entity?  Perhaps we can  
start a separate thread on this and find out how volunteers to invest  
time in the legal entity.

--Paul