With my forthcoming retirement from the OSM Board coming soon, I
wanted to give the leadership changes discussion another shot. As one
of the key folks who brought this discussion to the table, I would be
happy if the leadership team decided to take one of the following
actions via a simple vote (majority rules):
1) agree to set this as the key Leadership Team discussion at the J
and Beyond conference
3) agree to let this die and move on to other cross-team items
Any thoughts or opinions would be great. A simple "I vote for #X"
would be fine for those short on time.
My own opinion is that since only 5 people shared their voice on
Paul's thread above, it would seem best to move forward with
discussions to make sure we have stronger consensus, one way or
another. I vote for #1.
It looks like a fair amount of LT members are going to attend JAB, if so and there's going to be a summit then I vote for #1. It'll be a great opportunity to move forward on this subject.
If for any reasons we'd decide not to have a summit at JAB I'd suggest we pick some dates to have an online meeting with all three leadership teams to discuss the subject and how to move on.
> I'd like to see this topic not only discussed, but also voted on at the > summit.
> Best, > Dianne
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Joomla Leadership" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-leadership/-/VNUZzlDpnN0J. > To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
I suggest that we take the next three months leading up to JAB to form one or more working groups that will study various aspects of the proposed leadership structure changes in more depth. That way we can have a more detailed set of recommendations to review and discuss at JAB, with the goal of making a decision there about the best approach to implement.
Thanks,
paul
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Marijke Stuivenberg <
marijkestuivenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > It looks like a fair amount of LT members are going to attend JAB, if so > and there's going to be a summit then I vote for #1. > It'll be a great opportunity to move forward on this subject.
> If for any reasons we'd decide not to have a summit at JAB I'd suggest we > pick some dates to have an online meeting with all three leadership teams > to discuss the subject and how to move on.
>> I'd like to see this topic not only discussed, but also voted on at the >> summit.
>> Best, >> Dianne
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Joomla Leadership" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-leadership/-/VNUZzlDpnN0J. >> To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Joomla Leadership" group. > To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
>> I suggest that we take the next three months leading up to JAB to form >> one or more working groups that will study various aspects of the >> proposed leadership structure changes in more depth. That way we can >> have a more detailed set of recommendations to review and discuss at >> JAB, with the goal of making a decision there about the best approach to >> implement.
This will help us make an informed decision, and ensure that any concerns get the needed attention.
Jacques Rentzke Secretary of the Board Open Source Matters, Inc.
> I suggest that we take the next three months leading up to JAB to form > one or more working groups that will study various aspects of the > proposed leadership structure changes in more depth. That way we can > have a more detailed set of recommendations to review and discuss at > JAB, with the goal of making a decision there about the best approach to > implement.
> Thanks,
> paul
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Marijke Stuivenberg > <marijkestuivenb...@gmail.com <mailto:marijkestuivenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> It looks like a fair amount of LT members are going to attend JAB, > if so and there's going to be a summit then I vote for #1. > It'll be a great opportunity to move forward on this subject.
> If for any reasons we'd decide not to have a summit at JAB I'd > suggest we pick some dates to have an online meeting with all three > leadership teams to discuss the subject and how to move on.
> With my forthcoming retirement from the OSM Board coming soon, I > wanted to give the leadership changes discussion another shot. As one > of the key folks who brought this discussion to the table, I would be > happy if the leadership team decided to take one of the following > actions via a simple vote (majority rules):
> 1) agree to set this as the key Leadership Team discussion at the J > and Beyond conference
> 3) agree to let this die and move on to other cross-team items
> Any thoughts or opinions would be great. A simple "I vote for #X" > would be fine for those short on time.
> My own opinion is that since only 5 people shared their voice on > Paul's thread above, it would seem best to move forward with > discussions to make sure we have stronger consensus, one way or > another. I vote for #1.
I vote on #1, and agree with Paul's suggestion. In order for the meetings at JAB to be productive it would be good to do some preparation before all coming together.
ryan.ozi...@opensourcematters.org> wrote: > Hi folks,
> With my forthcoming retirement from the OSM Board coming soon, I > wanted to give the leadership changes discussion another shot. As one > of the key folks who brought this discussion to the table, I would be > happy if the leadership team decided to take one of the following > actions via a simple vote (majority rules):
> 1) agree to set this as the key Leadership Team discussion at the J > and Beyond conference
> 3) agree to let this die and move on to other cross-team items
> Any thoughts or opinions would be great. A simple "I vote for #X" > would be fine for those short on time.
> My own opinion is that since only 5 people shared their voice on > Paul's thread above, it would seem best to move forward with > discussions to make sure we have stronger consensus, one way or > another. I vote for #1.
> Thanks everyone, > Ryan
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Joomla Leadership" group. > To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
alice.gre...@opensourcematters.org> wrote: > I vote on #1, and agree with Paul's suggestion. In order for the meetings > at JAB to be productive it would be good to do some preparation before all > coming together.
> Alice
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ryan Ozimek < > ryan.ozi...@opensourcematters.org> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> With my forthcoming retirement from the OSM Board coming soon, I >> wanted to give the leadership changes discussion another shot. As one >> of the key folks who brought this discussion to the table, I would be >> happy if the leadership team decided to take one of the following >> actions via a simple vote (majority rules):
>> 1) agree to set this as the key Leadership Team discussion at the J >> and Beyond conference
>> 3) agree to let this die and move on to other cross-team items
>> Any thoughts or opinions would be great. A simple "I vote for #X" >> would be fine for those short on time.
>> My own opinion is that since only 5 people shared their voice on >> Paul's thread above, it would seem best to move forward with >> discussions to make sure we have stronger consensus, one way or >> another. I vote for #1.
>> Thanks everyone, >> Ryan
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Joomla Leadership" group. >> To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Joomla Leadership" group. > To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
-- Javier Gomez OpenSourceMatters Part of the Joomla! Project Providing a flexible platform for digital publishing and collaboration
> And I will be more than happy to be part of the group preparing the meeting and be part of Paul suggested working group.
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Alice Grevet <alice.gre...@opensourcematters.org> wrote: > I vote on #1, and agree with Paul's suggestion. In order for the meetings at JAB to be productive it would be good to do some preparation before all coming together.
> Alice
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ryan Ozimek <ryan.ozi...@opensourcematters.org> wrote: > Hi folks,
> With my forthcoming retirement from the OSM Board coming soon, I > wanted to give the leadership changes discussion another shot. As one > of the key folks who brought this discussion to the table, I would be > happy if the leadership team decided to take one of the following > actions via a simple vote (majority rules):
> 1) agree to set this as the key Leadership Team discussion at the J > and Beyond conference
> 3) agree to let this die and move on to other cross-team items
> Any thoughts or opinions would be great. A simple "I vote for #X" > would be fine for those short on time.
> My own opinion is that since only 5 people shared their voice on > Paul's thread above, it would seem best to move forward with > discussions to make sure we have stronger consensus, one way or > another. I vote for #1.
> Thanks everyone, > Ryan
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla Leadership" group. > To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla Leadership" group. > To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
> -- > Javier Gomez > OpenSourceMatters > Part of the Joomla! Project > Providing a flexible platform for digital publishing and collaboration
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla Leadership" group. > To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
We've made a decision to have a joint summit after JAB, and that the primary topic will be a follow-up and vote on the leadership structure changes that were proposed following our previous joint summit last July in San Jose<http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/1503-proposed-leadership...> .
We've gotten support in this thread (along with no objections) to the idea of forming a working group that would put more research and thought into the details for how any recommended changes might best be implemented. The output from that working group can be the starting point for further discussion in our joint summit meetings.
We've now got a little over two months until JAB, and there's a lot of work for this working group to do, so I think we should get started. I think an ideal working group would include at least one volunteer from PLT, CLT, and OSM, and I think it would be helpful if some members of the community were also invited to join. A lot of community members shared a lot of ideas in the JPeople discussion following the proposed leadership structure changes blog<http://people.joomla.org/groups/viewdiscussion/1344-proposed-leadersh...>, and I think it would be great to invite some of those people to join this working group. I also think it would be great if the working group invited input and feedback from the community as a whole as well for some aspects of their work.
Are there any objections to following this approach, or any other suggestions or ideas about it? I would be happy to write a blog to share this with the community to help get this started.
Here are some of the things I think this working group might put more research and thought into, with a goal of coming up with some recommendations in advance of our joint summit immediately following JAB:
- 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 accomodate 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
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Robert Deutz <rde...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I vote for #1
> Robert
> On 19 Feb., 17:05, Ron Severdia <ron.sever...@joomla.org> wrote: > > I vote for #1. That will put a stake in the ground for whether or not > this > > proposal will move forward.
> > Also sounds like a good idea to form an impartial working group to gather > > information leading up to JAB.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Joomla Leadership" group. > To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
Since I wasn't able to be at the San Jose summit I really want to participate on that working group because I want to have deeper knowledge on the leadership changes.
I'm happy to start a Skype chat with the people that wants to work on this researh.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Paul Orwig <paul.or...@community.joomla.org>wrote:
> We've made a decision to have a joint summit after JAB, and that the > primary topic will be a follow-up and vote on the leadership structure > changes that were proposed following our previous joint summit last July > in San Jose<http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/1503-proposed-leadership...> > .
> We've gotten support in this thread (along with no objections) to the idea > of forming a working group that would put more research and thought into > the details for how any recommended changes might best be implemented. The > output from that working group can be the starting point for further > discussion in our joint summit meetings.
> We've now got a little over two months until JAB, and there's a lot of > work for this working group to do, so I think we should get started. I > think an ideal working group would include at least one volunteer from PLT, > CLT, and OSM, and I think it would be helpful if some members of the > community were also invited to join. A lot of community members shared a > lot of ideas in the JPeople discussion following the proposed leadership > structure changes blog<http://people.joomla.org/groups/viewdiscussion/1344-proposed-leadersh...>, > and I think it would be great to invite some of those people to join this > working group. I also think it would be great if the working group invited > input and feedback from the community as a whole as well for some aspects > of their work.
> Are there any objections to following this approach, or any other > suggestions or ideas about it? I would be happy to write a blog to share > this with the community to help get this started.
> Here are some of the things I think this working group might put more > research and thought into, with a goal of coming up with some > recommendations in advance of our joint summit immediately following JAB:
> - 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 accomodate 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
> Thanks,
> paul
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Robert Deutz <rde...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>> I vote for #1
>> Robert
>> On 19 Feb., 17:05, Ron Severdia <ron.sever...@joomla.org> wrote: >> > I vote for #1. That will put a stake in the ground for whether or not >> this >> > proposal will move forward.
>> > Also sounds like a good idea to form an impartial working group to >> gather >> > information leading up to JAB.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Joomla Leadership" group. >> To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Joomla Leadership" group. > To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
-- Javier Gomez OpenSourceMatters Part of the Joomla! Project Providing a flexible platform for digital publishing and collaboration
The working group to research and provide recommendations on proposed leadership structure changes has formed and they are anxious to go ahead and get started. As of now there are volunteers from CLT (Peter) and OSM (Javier) in this working group. It would be great to get a volunteer from PLT to also join this working group. Please follow up with Javier or Peter if any other leadership team members are interested in joining this working group. After not getting any objections in the Joomla leadership Skype chat, John Coonen, Alan Langford, and Jeremy Wilken have all been invited to join this working group, and they have all accepted.
This working group has decided to create a public Google group as their primary communications channel:
I am going to send an email to that Google group to share some links and history about what has taken place up to now for the proposed leadership structure changes, but I won't be a member of the working group.
This working group will plan on providing us with some updates as their work progresses, and we can all follow discussions on their public Google group. In the interest of getting more accomplished in a short amount of time, I don't think they plan on asking for too much more public community feedback between now and our joint summit in May. But the good news they already have access to plenty of community feedback in the JPeople discussion that followed our blog post about the proposed leadership structure changes.
This working group is going to put in a lot of time and effort over the next two months, and I want to ask that we all give thoughtful, serious consideration to the recommendations that they will give us. That doesn't mean we are all expected to agree with their recommendations. But I think it does mean that we should take a close look at their recommendations, and take them into account as we aim to discuss and make a decision about the proposed leadership structure changes that have been under consideration since our previous joint summit last July in San Jose.
javier.go...@opensourcematters.org> wrote: > Hi all,
> Since I wasn't able to be at the San Jose summit I really want to > participate on that working group because I want to have deeper knowledge > on the leadership changes.
> I'm happy to start a Skype chat with the people that wants to work on this > researh.
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Paul Orwig < > paul.or...@community.joomla.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> We've made a decision to have a joint summit after JAB, and that the >> primary topic will be a follow-up and vote on the leadership structure >> changes that were proposed following our previous joint summit last July >> in San Jose<http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/1503-proposed-leadership...> >> .
>> We've gotten support in this thread (along with no objections) to the >> idea of forming a working group that would put more research and thought >> into the details for how any recommended changes might best be implemented. >> The output from that working group can be the starting point for further >> discussion in our joint summit meetings.
>> We've now got a little over two months until JAB, and there's a lot of >> work for this working group to do, so I think we should get started. I >> think an ideal working group would include at least one volunteer from PLT, >> CLT, and OSM, and I think it would be helpful if some members of the >> community were also invited to join. A lot of community members shared a >> lot of ideas in the JPeople discussion following the proposed leadership >> structure changes blog<http://people.joomla.org/groups/viewdiscussion/1344-proposed-leadersh...>, >> and I think it would be great to invite some of those people to join this >> working group. I also think it would be great if the working group invited >> input and feedback from the community as a whole as well for some aspects >> of their work.
>> Are there any objections to following this approach, or any other >> suggestions or ideas about it? I would be happy to write a blog to share >> this with the community to help get this started.
>> Here are some of the things I think this working group might put more >> research and thought into, with a goal of coming up with some >> recommendations in advance of our joint summit immediately following JAB:
>> - 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 accomodate 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
>> Thanks,
>> paul
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Robert Deutz <rde...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>> I vote for #1
>>> Robert
>>> On 19 Feb., 17:05, Ron Severdia <ron.sever...@joomla.org> wrote: >>> > I vote for #1. That will put a stake in the ground for whether or not >>> this >>> > proposal will move forward.
>>> > Also sounds like a good idea to form an impartial working group to >>> gather >>> > information leading up to JAB.
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Joomla Leadership" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Joomla Leadership" group. >> To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
> -- > Javier Gomez > OpenSourceMatters > Part of the Joomla! Project > Providing a flexible platform for digital publishing and collaboration
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Joomla Leadership" group. > To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
Thanks Paul, Javier, Peter, John, Alan and Jeremy for putting your effort into this responsibility. I know that you will all give the subject of leadership structure thoughtful consideration.
> The working group to research and provide recommendations on proposed > leadership structure changes has formed and they are anxious to go ahead > and get started. As of now there are volunteers from CLT (Peter) and OSM > (Javier) in this working group. It would be great to get a volunteer from > PLT to also join this working group. Please follow up with Javier or Peter > if any other leadership team members are interested in joining this working > group. After not getting any objections in the Joomla leadership Skype > chat, John Coonen, Alan Langford, and Jeremy Wilken have all been invited > to join this working group, and they have all accepted.
> This working group has decided to create a public Google group as their > primary communications channel:
> I am going to send an email to that Google group to share some links and > history about what has taken place up to now for the proposed leadership > structure changes, but I won't be a member of the working group.
> This working group will plan on providing us with some updates as their > work progresses, and we can all follow discussions on their public Google > group. In the interest of getting more accomplished in a short amount of > time, I don't think they plan on asking for too much more public community > feedback between now and our joint summit in May. But the good news they > already have access to plenty of community feedback in the JPeople > discussion that followed our blog post about the proposed leadership > structure changes.
> This working group is going to put in a lot of time and effort over the > next two months, and I want to ask that we all give thoughtful, serious > consideration to the recommendations that they will give us. That doesn't > mean we are all expected to agree with their recommendations. But I think > it does mean that we should take a close look at their recommendations, and > take them into account as we aim to discuss and make a decision about the > proposed leadership structure changes that have been under consideration > since our previous joint summit last July in San Jose.
> Thanks,
> paul
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Javier Gomez < > javier.go...@opensourcematters.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Since I wasn't able to be at the San Jose summit I really want to >> participate on that working group because I want to have deeper knowledge >> on the leadership changes.
>> I'm happy to start a Skype chat with the people that wants to work on >> this researh.
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Paul Orwig < >> paul.or...@community.joomla.org> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> We've made a decision to have a joint summit after JAB, and that the >>> primary topic will be a follow-up and vote on the leadership structure >>> changes that were proposed following our previous joint summit last July >>> in San Jose<http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/1503-proposed-leadership...> >>> .
>>> We've gotten support in this thread (along with no objections) to the >>> idea of forming a working group that would put more research and thought >>> into the details for how any recommended changes might best be implemented. >>> The output from that working group can be the starting point for further >>> discussion in our joint summit meetings.
>>> We've now got a little over two months until JAB, and there's a lot of >>> work for this working group to do, so I think we should get started. I >>> think an ideal working group would include at least one volunteer from PLT, >>> CLT, and OSM, and I think it would be helpful if some members of the >>> community were also invited to join. A lot of community members shared a >>> lot of ideas in the JPeople discussion following the proposed >>> leadership structure changes blog<http://people.joomla.org/groups/viewdiscussion/1344-proposed-leadersh...>, >>> and I think it would be great to invite some of those people to join this >>> working group. I also think it would be great if the working group invited >>> input and feedback from the community as a whole as well for some aspects >>> of their work.
>>> Are there any objections to following this approach, or any other >>> suggestions or ideas about it? I would be happy to write a blog to share >>> this with the community to help get this started.
>>> Here are some of the things I think this working group might put more >>> research and thought into, with a goal of coming up with some >>> recommendations in advance of our joint summit immediately following JAB:
>>> - 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 accomodate 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
>>> Thanks,
>>> paul
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Robert Deutz <rde...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>>> I vote for #1
>>>> Robert
>>>> On 19 Feb., 17:05, Ron Severdia <ron.sever...@joomla.org> wrote: >>>> > I vote for #1. That will put a stake in the ground for whether or not >>>> this >>>> > proposal will move forward.
>>>> > Also sounds like a good idea to form an impartial working group to >>>> gather >>>> > information leading up to JAB.
>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Joomla Leadership" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Joomla Leadership" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
>> -- >> Javier Gomez >> OpenSourceMatters >> Part of the Joomla! Project >> Providing a flexible platform for digital publishing and collaboration
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Joomla Leadership" group. >> To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Working Group for Joomla Leadership Structure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.
-- Alice Grevet Secretary Open Source Matters, Inc.
Sounds like some good thinkers are being included in this important discussion.
Just something random I was thinking about passing on, which I think is very important. Take it how you like, or ignore it, I'm not offended:
When the COC's relationshop with OSM was first defined we had the invaluable guidance of James Vasile who was with us at our summit in 2007. James brought many good things to the discussion, but the most important part (I feel) he played was being able to bring the ideas/plans/hopes/dreams of ours into a form that could legally be defined. I believe this was one of the most important things that happened at our summit in 2007. There is not too many left from those time.. Ryan was there.. he can probably also provide some valuable information on this side of things.
My suggestion is, when considering these new structural changes, if at all possible please try to take into account the need for any changes to be legally sound. I'd image the only way to do this is to ensure that a suitably qualified person (someone of James' qualification) needs to be included in any discussions about how to implement any planned changes.
I'll try to answer any questions you might have. Please let me know if you don't undertand my suggestion and I'll try to re-phrase it.
I agree that it's important to remember what we've already learned from past restructuring processes and for volunteering? to provide some historical perspective. :)
It would indeed also be good to get guidance from someone like James.
Thank you also to those who already volunteered to help in the Working Group on Joomla Leadership Structure.
> Sounds like some good thinkers are being included in this important > discussion.
> Just something random I was thinking about passing on, which I think is > very important. Take it how you like, or ignore it, I'm not offended:
> When the COC's relationshop with OSM was first defined we had the > invaluable guidance of James Vasile who was with us at our summit in > 2007. James brought many good things to the discussion, but the most > important part (I feel) he played was being able to bring the > ideas/plans/hopes/dreams of ours into a form that could legally be > defined. I believe this was one of the most important things that > happened at our summit in 2007. There is not too many left from those > time.. Ryan was there.. he can probably also provide some valuable > information on this side of things.
> My suggestion is, when considering these new structural changes, if at > all possible please try to take into account the need for any changes to > be legally sound. I'd image the only way to do this is to ensure that a > suitably qualified person (someone of James' qualification) needs to be > included in any discussions about how to implement any planned changes.
> I'll try to answer any questions you might have. Please let me know if > you don't undertand my suggestion and I'll try to re-phrase it.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Working Group for Joomla Leadership Structure" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-leadership/-/yrctdir7yAoJ. > To post to this group, send email to joomla-leadership@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > joomla-leadership+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en. > On 2012/03/21 08:25 AM, Alice Grevet wrote: >> Thanks Paul, Javier, Peter, John, Alan and Jeremy for putting your >> effort into this responsibility. I know that you will all give the >> subject of leadership structure thoughtful consideration.
>> Best regards, >> Alice
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Paul Orwig >> <paul.or...@community.joomla.org >> <mailto:paul.or...@community.joomla.org>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> The working group to research and provide recommendations on >> proposed leadership structure changes has formed and they are >> anxious to go ahead and get started. As of now there are volunteers >> from CLT (Peter) and OSM (Javier) in this working group. It would be >> great to get a volunteer from PLT to also join this working group. >> Please follow up with Javier or Peter if any other leadership team >> members are interested in joining this working group. After not >> getting any objections in the Joomla leadership Skype chat, John >> Coonen, Alan Langford, and Jeremy Wilken have all been invited to >> join this working group, and they have all accepted.
>> This working group has decided to create a public Google group as >> their primary communications channel:
>> I am going to send an email to that Google group to share some links >> and history about what has taken place up to now for the proposed >> leadership structure changes, but I won't be a member of the working >> group.
>> This working group will plan on providing us with some updates as >> their work progresses, and we can all follow discussions on their >> public Google group. In the interest of getting more accomplished in >> a short amount of time, I don't think they plan on asking for too >> much more public community feedback between now and our joint summit >> in May. But the good news they already have access to plenty of >> community feedback in the JPeople discussion that followed our blog >> post about the proposed leadership structure changes.
>> This working group is going to put in a lot of time and effort over >> the next two months, and I want to ask that we all give thoughtful, >> serious consideration to the recommendations that they will give us. >> That doesn't mean we are all expected to agree with their >> recommendations. But I think it does mean that we should take a >> close look at their recommendations, and take them into account as >> we aim to discuss and make a decision about the proposed leadership >> structure changes that have been under consideration since our >> previous joint summit last July in San Jose.
>> Thanks,
>> paul
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Javier Gomez >> <javier.go...@opensourcematters.org >> <mailto:javier.go...@opensourcematters.org>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Since I wasn't able to be at the San Jose summit I really want >> to participate on that working group because I want to have >> deeper knowledge on the leadership changes.
>> I'm happy to start a Skype chat with the people that wants to >> work on this researh.
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Paul Orwig >> <paul.or...@community.joomla.org >> <mailto:paul.or...@community.joomla.org>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> We've made a decision to have a joint summit after JAB, and >> that the primary topic will be a follow-up and vote on the >> leadership structure changes that were proposed following >> our previous joint summit last July in San Jose >> <http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/1503-proposed-leadership...>.
>> We've gotten support in this thread (along with no >> objections) to the idea of forming a working group that >> would put more research and thought into the details for how >> any recommended changes might best be implemented. The >> output from that working group can be the starting point for >> further discussion in our joint summit meetings.
>> We've now got a little over two months until JAB, and >> there's a lot of work for this working group to do, so I >> think we should get started. I think an ideal working group >> would include at least one volunteer from PLT, CLT, and OSM, >> and I think it would be helpful if some members of the >> community were also invited to join. A lot of community >> members shared a lot of ideas in theJPeople discussion >> following the proposed leadership structure changes blog >> <http://people.joomla.org/groups/viewdiscussion/1344-proposed-leadersh...>, >> and I think it would be great to invite some of those people >> to join this working group. I also think it would be great >> if the working group invited input and feedback from the >> community as a whole as well for some aspects of their work.
>> Are there any objections to following this approach, or any >> other suggestions or ideas about it? I would be happy to >> write a blog to share this with the community to help get >> this started.
>> Here are some of the things I think this working group might >> put more research and thought into, with a goal of coming up >> with some recommendations in advance of our joint summit >> immediately following JAB:
>> * Details for new board, including: >> o What would a good name for the new board be? >> o How might OSM by-laws need to be changed (or new >> by-laws written) to accomodate all recommended changes? >> o What would the responsibilities for the new board >> consist of? >> o How would the initial new board be formed? >> o How would new board members be chosen? >> o What would terms a/o term limits be for board members? >> o How would board members potentially be removed?
>> * Details for new committee structure, including: >> o What would be a good number of committees? >> o What would the responsibilities of each of the new >> committees consist of? >> o Which committees would current leaders and working >> groups be assigned to? >> o How would the committees and board best stay in >> contact and work together? >> o 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
I'm bringing back this old thread. It have been two months since we started
the "Working Team for the Leadership Structure Changes". As you may recall,
Christine, Jeremy, Alan, Peter and me have been working on a proposal for
the leadership structure changes starting from the results of the last
summit in San Jose.
In a few days we will have the "Post JAB summit" where we are expected to
work in deep on that. Today I'm sharing with you this final document that
we have been working during this period. You can find the text here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QTGurHi6aiCOnTixnWVRDalb5zuyQagam...
Remind that this is a proposal, so, your inputs and comments at the "Post
JandBeyond meeting" will be the most important part of all this work. This
is why I would like to ask you to read it before the meeting.
Thanks and see you at the meeting. ^_^
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Jacques Rentzke <
jacques.rent...@opensourcematters.org> wrote:
> hi Brad
> Thanks for that important reminder.
> I agree that it's important to remember what we've already learned from
> past restructuring processes and for volunteering? to provide some
> historical perspective. :)
> It would indeed also be good to get guidance from someone like James.
> Thank you also to those who already volunteered to help in the Working
> Group on Joomla Leadership Structure.
> Jacques
> On 2012/03/23 12:52 AM, Brad Baker wrote:
>> Sounds like some good thinkers are being included in this important
>> discussion.
>> Just something random I was thinking about passing on, which I think is
>> very important. Take it how you like, or ignore it, I'm not offended:
>> When the COC's relationshop with OSM was first defined we had the
>> invaluable guidance of James Vasile who was with us at our summit in
>> 2007. James brought many good things to the discussion, but the most
>> important part (I feel) he played was being able to bring the
>> ideas/plans/hopes/dreams of ours into a form that could legally be
>> defined. I believe this was one of the most important things that
>> happened at our summit in 2007. There is not too many left from those
>> time.. Ryan was there.. he can probably also provide some valuable
>> information on this side of things.
>> My suggestion is, when considering these new structural changes, if at
>> all possible please try to take into account the need for any changes to
>> be legally sound. I'd image the only way to do this is to ensure that a
>> suitably qualified person (someone of James' qualification) needs to be
>> included in any discussions about how to implement any planned changes.
>> I'll try to answer any questions you might have. Please let me know if
>> you don't undertand my suggestion and I'll try to re-phrase it.
>>> Thanks Paul, Javier, Peter, John, Alan and Jeremy for putting your
>>> effort into this responsibility. I know that you will all give the
>>> subject of leadership structure thoughtful consideration.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Alice
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Paul Orwig
>>> <paul.or...@community.joomla.**org <paul.or...@community.joomla.org>
>>> <mailto:paul.orwig@community.**joomla.org<paul.or...@community.joomla.org>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> The working group to research and provide recommendations on
>>> proposed leadership structure changes has formed and they are
>>> anxious to go ahead and get started. As of now there are volunteers
>>> from CLT (Peter) and OSM (Javier) in this working group. It would be
>>> great to get a volunteer from PLT to also join this working group.
>>> Please follow up with Javier or Peter if any other leadership team
>>> members are interested in joining this working group. After not
>>> getting any objections in the Joomla leadership Skype chat, John
>>> Coonen, Alan Langford, and Jeremy Wilken have all been invited to
>>> join this working group, and they have all accepted.
>>> This working group has decided to create a public Google group as
>>> their primary communications channel:
>>> I am going to send an email to that Google group to share some links
>>> and history about what has taken place up to now for the proposed
>>> leadership structure changes, but I won't be a member of the working
>>> group.
>>> This working group will plan on providing us with some updates as
>>> their work progresses, and we can all follow discussions on their
>>> public Google group. In the interest of getting more accomplished in
>>> a short amount of time, I don't think they plan on asking for too
>>> much more public community feedback between now and our joint summit
>>> in May. But the good news they already have access to plenty of
>>> community feedback in the JPeople discussion that followed our blog
>>> post about the proposed leadership structure changes.
>>> This working group is going to put in a lot of time and effort over
>>> the next two months, and I want to ask that we all give thoughtful,
>>> serious consideration to the recommendations that they will give us.
>>> That doesn't mean we are all expected to agree with their
>>> recommendations. But I think it does mean that we should take a
>>> close look at their recommendations, and take them into account as
>>> we aim to discuss and make a decision about the proposed leadership
>>> structure changes that have been under consideration since our
>>> previous joint summit last July in San Jose.
>>> Thanks,
>>> paul
>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Javier Gomez
>>> <javier.gomez@**opensourcematters.org<javier.go...@opensourcematters.org>
>>> <mailto:javier.gomez@**opensourcematters.org<javier.go...@opensourcematters.org>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Since I wasn't able to be at the San Jose summit I really want
>>> to participate on that working group because I want to have
>>> deeper knowledge on the leadership changes.
>>> I'm happy to start a Skype chat with the people that wants to
>>> work on this researh.
>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Paul Orwig
>>> <paul.or...@community.joomla.**org<paul.or...@community.joomla.org>
>>> <mailto:paul.orwig@community.**joomla.org<paul.or...@community.joomla.org>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> We've gotten support in this thread (along with no
>>> objections) to the idea of forming a working group that
>>> would put more research and thought into the details for how
>>> any recommended changes might best be implemented. The
>>> output from that working group can be the starting point for
>>> further discussion in our joint summit meetings.
>>> We've now got a little over two months until JAB, and
>>> there's a lot of work for this working group to do, so I
>>> think we should get started. I think an ideal working group
>>> would include at least one volunteer from PLT, CLT, and OSM,
>>> and I think it would be helpful if some members of the
>>> community were also invited to join. A lot of community
>>> members shared a lot of ideas in theJPeople discussion
Thanks Javier, to you, Peter, Christine, Jeremy, and Alan for all the time
and effort your working group has put into this proposal. You all
volunteered for a difficult job with not much time to do it. You have
delivered what we asked, which was to give us a set of detailed
recommendations to consider and discuss at our summit.
@All - I am looking forward to seeing everyone who will be coming to
JandBeyond next week! I hope everyone has safe travels, that the conference
will be great and our summit will be productive.
javier.go...@opensourcematters.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm bringing back this old thread. It have been two months since we
> started the "Working Team for the Leadership Structure Changes". As you may
> recall, Christine, Jeremy, Alan, Peter and me have been working on a
> proposal for the leadership structure changes starting from the results of
> the last summit in San Jose.
> In a few days we will have the "Post JAB summit" where we are expected to
> work in deep on that. Today I'm sharing with you this final document that
> we have been working during this period. You can find the text here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QTGurHi6aiCOnTixnWVRDalb5zuyQagam...
> Remind that this is a proposal, so, your inputs and comments at the "Post
> JandBeyond meeting" will be the most important part of all this work. This
> is why I would like to ask you to read it before the meeting.
> Thanks and see you at the meeting. ^_^
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Jacques Rentzke <
> jacques.rent...@opensourcematters.org> wrote:
>> hi Brad
>> Thanks for that important reminder.
>> I agree that it's important to remember what we've already learned from
>> past restructuring processes and for volunteering? to provide some
>> historical perspective. :)
>> It would indeed also be good to get guidance from someone like James.
>> Thank you also to those who already volunteered to help in the Working
>> Group on Joomla Leadership Structure.
>> Jacques
>> On 2012/03/23 12:52 AM, Brad Baker wrote:
>>> Sounds like some good thinkers are being included in this important
>>> discussion.
>>> Just something random I was thinking about passing on, which I think is
>>> very important. Take it how you like, or ignore it, I'm not offended:
>>> When the COC's relationshop with OSM was first defined we had the
>>> invaluable guidance of James Vasile who was with us at our summit in
>>> 2007. James brought many good things to the discussion, but the most
>>> important part (I feel) he played was being able to bring the
>>> ideas/plans/hopes/dreams of ours into a form that could legally be
>>> defined. I believe this was one of the most important things that
>>> happened at our summit in 2007. There is not too many left from those
>>> time.. Ryan was there.. he can probably also provide some valuable
>>> information on this side of things.
>>> My suggestion is, when considering these new structural changes, if at
>>> all possible please try to take into account the need for any changes to
>>> be legally sound. I'd image the only way to do this is to ensure that a
>>> suitably qualified person (someone of James' qualification) needs to be
>>> included in any discussions about how to implement any planned changes.
>>> I'll try to answer any questions you might have. Please let me know if
>>> you don't undertand my suggestion and I'll try to re-phrase it.
>>>> Thanks Paul, Javier, Peter, John, Alan and Jeremy for putting your
>>>> effort into this responsibility. I know that you will all give the
>>>> subject of leadership structure thoughtful consideration.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Alice
>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Paul Orwig
>>>> <paul.or...@community.joomla.**org <paul.or...@community.joomla.org>
>>>> <mailto:paul.orwig@community.**joomla.org<paul.or...@community.joomla.org>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> The working group to research and provide recommendations on
>>>> proposed leadership structure changes has formed and they are
>>>> anxious to go ahead and get started. As of now there are volunteers
>>>> from CLT (Peter) and OSM (Javier) in this working group. It would be
>>>> great to get a volunteer from PLT to also join this working group.
>>>> Please follow up with Javier or Peter if any other leadership team
>>>> members are interested in joining this working group. After not
>>>> getting any objections in the Joomla leadership Skype chat, John
>>>> Coonen, Alan Langford, and Jeremy Wilken have all been invited to
>>>> join this working group, and they have all accepted.
>>>> This working group has decided to create a public Google group as
>>>> their primary communications channel:
>>>> I am going to send an email to that Google group to share some links
>>>> and history about what has taken place up to now for the proposed
>>>> leadership structure changes, but I won't be a member of the working
>>>> group.
>>>> This working group will plan on providing us with some updates as
>>>> their work progresses, and we can all follow discussions on their
>>>> public Google group. In the interest of getting more accomplished in
>>>> a short amount of time, I don't think they plan on asking for too
>>>> much more public community feedback between now and our joint summit
>>>> in May. But the good news they already have access to plenty of
>>>> community feedback in the JPeople discussion that followed our blog
>>>> post about the proposed leadership structure changes.
>>>> This working group is going to put in a lot of time and effort over
>>>> the next two months, and I want to ask that we all give thoughtful,
>>>> serious consideration to the recommendations that they will give us.
>>>> That doesn't mean we are all expected to agree with their
>>>> recommendations. But I think it does mean that we should take a
>>>> close look at their recommendations, and take them into account as
>>>> we aim to discuss and make a decision about the proposed leadership
>>>> structure changes that have been under consideration since our
>>>> previous joint summit last July in San Jose.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> paul
>>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Javier Gomez
>>>> <javier.gomez@**opensourcematters.org<javier.go...@opensourcematters.org>
>>>> <mailto:javier.gomez@**opensourcematters.org<javier.go...@opensourcematters.org>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> Since I wasn't able to be at the San Jose summit I really want
>>>> to participate on that working group because I want to have
>>>> deeper knowledge on the leadership changes.
>>>> I'm happy to start a Skype chat with the people that wants to
>>>> work on this researh.
>>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Paul Orwig
>>>> <paul.or...@community.joomla.**org<paul.or...@community.joomla.org>
>>>> <mailto:paul.orwig@community.**joomla.org<paul.or...@community.joomla.org>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> We've gotten support in this thread (along with no
>>>> objections) to the idea of forming a working group that
>>>> would put more research and thought into the details for how
>>>> any recommended changes might best be implemented. The
>>>> output from that working group can be the starting point for
>>>> further discussion in our joint summit meetings.
>>>> We've now got a little over two months until JAB, and
>>>> there's a lot of work for this working group to do, so I
>>>> think we should get started. I think an ideal working
