Project Direction

[Ron Severdia]

In early June 2008, the Core Team and OSM had a summit in Germany to
discuss a strategy for the project and direction moving forward. The
results of that summit have been summarized as "change is coming soon"
in three subsequent blog posts:

http://www.joomla.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5100&Itemid=74

http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/426-renaissance-summit.html

http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/434-renaissance-summit-development-version.html

This is technically before my time, but it took a year to post
anything specific about the changes to the structure of the project
discussed at that summit:

http://www.joomla.org/announcements/general-news/5240-joomla-project-leadership.html

But now, six months later, there are claims even that post and diagram
aren't correct.

Since half of the former Core Team is no longer active with the Joomla
Project when the OSM/CT summit happened 18 months ago (and around a
third of the people who were involved are no longer involved in the
Project at all) and there's a clear mindset this structure hasn't
worked of some that remain. Even the Titanic doesn't take 18 months to
turn around and it's clear there is no longer a consensus on this
strategy. The tasks for which OSM was created are falling through the
cracks and the system put together 18 or so months ago is clearly not
serving us.

I'd like to propose an open discussion around these issues, to revise
this direction forward, and how to get "back to basics." In my
opinion, Open Source Matters should focus on the items and goals under
which it was originally founded—serving the financial and legal needs
of the Joomla Project. The teams within Joomla should be focusing on
developing software and building the ecosystem and community. If OSM
needs to liaison with the Leadership Team, the Community Working Group
and the Production Working Group in order to perform its legal and
financial duties, that should happen. But OSM doesn't control the
Joomla Project and never should. Somewhere in the last 18 months,
things got off track and we need to fix them.

[Louis Landry]

Hi Ron,

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Ron Severdia <ron.se...@joomla.org> wrote:

In early June 2008, the Core Team and OSM had a summit in Germany to
discuss a strategy for the project and direction moving forward. The
results of that summit have been summarized as "change is coming soon"
in three subsequent blog posts:

http://www.joomla.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5100&Itemid=74

http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/426-renaissance-summit.html

http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/434-renaissance-summit-development-version.html

Yep, it was a great summit actually.  We had a whole host of conversations about the project's future and past.  We worked through a bunch of issues and left a lot of things to be sorted out later, but most importantly it gave all of us an opportunity to talk face to face and understand each other a lot better.

In my tenure on the Joomla Core Team there has been a great deal of infighting and bickering and that has been largely due to an inability to understand each other and communicate well with each other.  There are some obvious exceptions and if ever I decide to write a "tell-all" book or something I will have a great wealth of material. :-)

 

This is technically before my time, but it took a year to post
anything specific about the changes to the structure of the project
discussed at that summit:

http://www.joomla.org/announcements/general-news/5240-joomla-project-leadership.html

While that announcement and restructuring of things is a result of the continuation of discussions taken place at the summit you describe, it is not as if all of those things were decided at the summit and a year later something was posted.  In fact, it is a year's worth of thought and reflection that brought about the discussions and decisions reflected in that announcement.  The proposal that eventually resulted in that announcement was only a couple of months old at the time of the announcement I believe.  It certainly was born of the discussions started at the summit though.

 

But now, six months later, there are claims even that post and diagram
aren't correct.

I don't think everyone signed off on that diagram.  I am not even sure I saw it before it was posted for example.  I do remember reading the text, and thought it was fine.  From memory it was either you or Amy Stephen who created the diagram, though I think Amy, and it wasn't in the text when I originally read it and was asked to review it.  I won't speak for others, but I suspect that to be generally the case.

That being said, I don't think the diagram is necessarily bad.  I think the problem with diagrams is that people put too much stock in them.  If the situation isn't exactly cut and dry then diagrams tend to be misleading.  People with agendas use them against other people, etc.  If you look at the diagram and use it to get a general sense of things instead of trying to look at every box literally I think it pretty much tells a correct story.

I can see why some people on OSM's board of directors or on the Leadership Teams or whatever may have issue with the diagram being there today if its being used against them in some way.  I don't think its a good idea to change a published news article though.  In the past we had a couple of Core Team members changing old articles and documents on our sites without notice or note, and that caused a lot of confusion and frustration.  Mostly I think the people putting too much stock in a diagram meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive and binding, need to find something more productive to do with their time.

 

Since half of the former Core Team is no longer active with the Joomla
Project when the OSM/CT summit happened 18 months ago (and around a
third of the people who were involved are no longer involved in the
Project at all) and there's a clear mindset this structure hasn't
worked of some that remain. Even the Titanic doesn't take 18 months to
turn around and it's clear there is no longer a consensus on this
strategy. The tasks for which OSM was created are falling through the
cracks and the system put together 18 or so months ago is clearly not
serving us.

 

I'd like to propose an open discussion around these issues, to revise

this direction forward, and how to get "back to basics." In my
opinion, Open Source Matters should focus on the items and goals under
which it was originally founded—serving the financial and legal needs
of the Joomla Project. The teams within Joomla should be focusing on
developing software and building the ecosystem and community. If OSM
needs to liaison with the Leadership Team, the Community Working Group
and the Production Working Group in order to perform its legal and
financial duties, that should happen. But OSM doesn't control the
Joomla Project and never should. Somewhere in the last 18 months,
things got off track and we need to fix them.

I don't necessarily agree with your assertions there.  I am happy to be continuously re-evaluating things that are problematic, thats just smart.  I don't agree that there is a "clear mindset this structure hasn't worked of some that remain".  I think you'll need to be more specific and I think that those some that remain need to speak for themselves.  What is seemingly clear to you regarding a consensus, isn't clear to me.

It sounds to me like what concerns you here is something about OSM, not the overall structure.  You don't seem to be talking about any other aspect of the structure.  OSM most certainly does not "control the Joomla Project" and never has.  I think OSM *is* focusing on serving the financial and legal needs of the Joomla project.  I also think they are doing a pretty good job of it, given the circumstances.  There are certainly things that can be improved for sure, but you haven't really given anything concrete to comment on here that I can tell.  I think we have just as much of a problem in what you described, "The teams within Joomla should be focusing on developing software and building the ecosystem and community", as we do in OSM serving the financial and legal needs of the Joomla project.

I'm all about self-evaluation and figuring out ways to get better.  Lets get the OSM board members on this list and have a conversation about making the future brighter, but lets focus on specific, concrete things that we can affect change on.

- Louis

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla Leadership" group.
To post to this group, send email to joomla-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-leaders...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.

--
Development Coordinator
Joomla! ... because open source matters.
http://www.joomla.org

[Ron Severdia]

Hi... thanks for responding, Louis.

On Nov 30, 12:59 pm, Louis Landry <louis.lan...@joomla.org> wrote:
>
> While that announcement and restructuring of things is a result of the
> continuation of discussions taken place at the summit you describe, it is
> not as if all of those things were decided at the summit and a year later
> something was posted.  In fact, it is a year's worth of thought and
> reflection that brought about the discussions and decisions reflected in
> that announcement.  The proposal that eventually resulted in that
> announcement was only a couple of months old at the time of the announcement
> I believe.  It certainly was born of the discussions started at the summit
> though.

Great, that's a good aspect to elaborate on. As mentioned above, there
were three posts around the time of the summit, then "radio silence"
for a whole year--which would make most logical people assume that
there's not as much of an agreement as originally stated. But if
that's truly the case, why weren't steps of the process or even
primary talking points discussed openly?

> I don't think everyone signed off on that diagram.  I am not even sure I saw
> it before it was posted for example.  I do remember reading the text, and
> thought it was fine.  

So, the entire Core Team and OSM didn't approve the message before it
was publicly posted as gospel? Since these results were referred to as
a "renaissance" in the project, it would seem to me that everyone
would want to be on board and share the same message all the way
through. Maybe ways to ensure that process happens in the future are
good things to discuss here.

> If the
> situation isn't exactly cut and dry then diagrams tend to be misleading.

I disagree (must be the designer in me...I think Tufte would agree).
Precisely when the information isn't cut and dry diagrams, if done
properly, can illuminate unclear areas and make it easier to
understand.

>  People with agendas use them against other people, etc.  If you look at the
> diagram and use it to get a general sense of things instead of trying to
> look at every box literally I think it pretty much tells a correct story.

No matter what agendas people have, as long as the information/diagram
doesn't misrepresent the facts, the facts still remain. I think when
creating a diagram as important as one which outlines the structure of
the project the goal shouldn't be to do it a "general" sense. It
should be very specific and with as much detail as possible--leaving
minimal room for "free interpretation."

This is an overall problem with public communication as well. Too
often the broad strokes are covered but the devil is in the details.

> I can see why some people on OSM's board of directors or on the Leadership
> Teams or whatever may have issue with the diagram being there today if its
> being used against them in some way.  I don't think its a good idea to
> change a published news article though.  In the past we had a couple of Core
> Team members changing old articles and documents on our sites without notice
> or note, and that caused a lot of confusion and frustration.  

Agreed, It's a news item/announcement. Even if the information has
changed, history hasn't.

> I don't necessarily agree with your assertions there.  I am happy to be
> continuously re-evaluating things that are problematic, thats just smart.  I
> don't agree that there is a "clear mindset this structure hasn't worked of
> some that remain".  I think you'll need to be more specific and I think that
> those some that remain need to speak for themselves.  What is seemingly
> clear to you regarding a consensus, isn't clear to me.

Yes, I intentionally left this open and unspecific for others within
the project to speak their minds rather than me speaking for them. One
of my main points was there's been enough turnover the in the project
since the first "meeting of the minds" occurred 18 months ago to
warrant discussion. So it's not just a question of the time, it's also
a question of the people involved.

That being said, if the original ideas are sound, then there should be
no concern whatsoever about taking another critical look at them with
the people currently leading the project. In fact, there's a good
chance it could lead to improving them.

> It sounds to me like what concerns you here is something about OSM, not the
> overall structure.  You don't seem to be talking about any other aspect of
> the structure.  

Yes, OSM is part of the structure and that's the part that personally
concerns me the most. The control that OSM currently wields (and is
planning on wielding) is of concern to me because of the exclusive,
inconsistent, and sub-standard approach to very important and
sensitive project issues.

But, again, my aim was to open the discussion to the overall approach
rather than just focus on OSM, which is one small (albeit quickly
growing) part of the puzzle.

> OSM most certainly does not "control the Joomla Project" and
> never has.  I think OSM *is* focusing on serving the financial and legal
> needs of the Joomla project.  I also think they are doing a pretty good job
> of it, given the circumstances.  

I guess I don't understand the extent of the phrase "given the
circumstances." Sure, there's plenty of work to be done and OSM has
been doing a yeoman's job of handling the legal issues that have
plagued the project for years. But the Joomla trademark was officially
granted in August 2008 and the bulk of those legal issues should have
tapered off long ago. The "courtroom era" of our history should be
over.

However, lately OSM has been dictating how things are "going to be."
They make decisions about who to hire for development, how to run
aspects of the Joomla websites, among other things. All without
discussion with the Leadership Team. Does OSM acting autonomously with
the "power of the pursestrings" really make it the controlling entity
of the project?

> There are certainly things that can be
> improved for sure, but you haven't really given anything concrete to comment
> on here that I can tell.  

There are plenty of examples, but here's a simple and current one...

Within days of hearing about the developer conference in New York, I
decided to attend. Since I'm a member of the Leadership Team and also
a member of the Production Working Group, I thought it was appropriate
for me to attend, being in the "developer corner" of the project, even
if OSM wasn't willing to pay for my expenses. Is my name on any of the
materials or announcements about the event? Not one mention. It's an
example of personal issues getting in the way of a professional and
inclusive approach. Why is this event so different from the others
that it's being managed by the President of OSM instead of the person
normally in charge of events? These are yet more reasons to re-
evaluate where the best use of existing skills belong.

> I think we have just as much of a problem in what
> you described, "The teams within Joomla should be focusing on developing
> software and building the ecosystem and community", as we do in OSM serving
> the financial and legal needs of the Joomla project.

Absolutely. And we need a plan to fix that, which is directly related
to the structure and how to communicate that to the public to get
their buy-in. With a tepid interest in public contributions to the
project, that communication is obviously not happening.

> I'm all about self-evaluation and figuring out ways to get better.  Lets get
> the OSM board members on this list and have a conversation about making the
> future brighter, but lets focus on specific, concrete things that we can
> affect change on.

Absolutely agree. I don't want this to be WWIII or a bash-fest. I'm
really hoping for a positive outcome that everyone, internally and
externally, can be on board with.

[Louis Landry]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Ron Severdia <ron.se...@joomla.org> wrote:

Hi... thanks for responding, Louis.

On Nov 30, 12:59 pm, Louis Landry <louis.lan...@joomla.org> wrote:
>
> While that announcement and restructuring of things is a result of the
> continuation of discussions taken place at the summit you describe, it is
> not as if all of those things were decided at the summit and a year later
> something was posted.  In fact, it is a year's worth of thought and
> reflection that brought about the discussions and decisions reflected in
> that announcement.  The proposal that eventually resulted in that
> announcement was only a couple of months old at the time of the announcement
> I believe.  It certainly was born of the discussions started at the summit
> though.

Great, that's a good aspect to elaborate on. As mentioned above, there
were three posts around the time of the summit, then "radio silence"
for a whole year--which would make most logical people assume that
there's not as much of an agreement as originally stated. But if
that's truly the case, why weren't steps of the process or even
primary talking points discussed openly?

Probably because that hasn't historically been how this project is run, and that dates back as far as I can remember.  That doesn't make it right or wrong necessarily, but that is what has existed for a long time.  Understanding the social dynamics of the old core team and its history isn't really in the scope of this conversation and not overly relevant to our future.  The important thing is that project leadership continually does a better job of communicating what is going on whenever prudent.

 

> I don't think everyone signed off on that diagram.  I am not even sure I saw
> it before it was posted for example.  I do remember reading the text, and
> thought it was fine.  

So, the entire Core Team and OSM didn't approve the message before it
was publicly posted as gospel? Since these results were referred to as
a "renaissance" in the project, it would seem to me that everyone
would want to be on board and share the same message all the way
through. Maybe ways to ensure that process happens in the future are
good things to discuss here.

I am not speaking for the entire Core Team and OSM board, they will have to speak for themselves.  I am saying exactly what I said.  The text document was written before the diagram was created and *I don't think* everyone saw and signed off on the diagram before the article was published.  Then I gave the personal example that I am pretty sure I didn't see the diagram before it was posted though I had seen the text.  I certainly think we can do a much better job with coordinating communication and would welcome discussions about that.

 

> If the
> situation isn't exactly cut and dry then diagrams tend to be misleading.

I disagree (must be the designer in me...I think Tufte would agree).
Precisely when the information isn't cut and dry diagrams, if done
properly, can illuminate unclear areas and make it easier to
understand.

I suppose that depends on the diagram in question... and this wasn't a Tufte diagram.  When making a diagram like the one that was created there is so much that goes into what words go where and how exhaustive lists have to be and what can be assumed.

There are so many aspects of the Joomla project and things that people do that to list them all and put them into their own little boxes or circles is not really feasible.  Also, as much as people like to think its true, there really aren't very many hard lines about who does what and who doesn't.  That has always been the case, and I doubt very seriously if it will ever change.

 

>  People with agendas use them against other people, etc.  If you look at the
> diagram and use it to get a general sense of things instead of trying to
> look at every box literally I think it pretty much tells a correct story.

No matter what agendas people have, as long as the information/diagram
doesn't misrepresent the facts, the facts still remain. I think when
creating a diagram as important as one which outlines the structure of
the project the goal shouldn't be to do it a "general" sense. It
should be very specific and with as much detail as possible--leaving
minimal room for "free interpretation."

This is an overall problem with public communication as well. Too
often the broad strokes are covered but the devil is in the details.

I can cop to that, but if thats the case then there should have not been a diagram in that post because it wasn't something that was hashed out with all of the necessary parties and agreed upon with that very acute attention to detail as a goal.  If thats an exercise we want to embark upon thats fine, but if that is how people are looking at the diagram in question than it is in fact potentially misleading and not representative of the facts just because it didn't go through the scrutiny it should have.

 

> I can see why some people on OSM's board of directors or on the Leadership
> Teams or whatever may have issue with the diagram being there today if its
> being used against them in some way.  I don't think its a good idea to
> change a published news article though.  In the past we had a couple of Core
> Team members changing old articles and documents on our sites without notice
> or note, and that caused a lot of confusion and frustration.  

Agreed, It's a news item/announcement. Even if the information has
changed, history hasn't.

> I don't necessarily agree with your assertions there.  I am happy to be
> continuously re-evaluating things that are problematic, thats just smart.  I
> don't agree that there is a "clear mindset this structure hasn't worked of
> some that remain".  I think you'll need to be more specific and I think that
> those some that remain need to speak for themselves.  What is seemingly
> clear to you regarding a consensus, isn't clear to me.

Yes, I intentionally left this open and unspecific for others within
the project to speak their minds rather than me speaking for them. One
of my main points was there's been enough turnover the in the project
since the first "meeting of the minds" occurred 18 months ago to
warrant discussion. So it's not just a question of the time, it's also
a question of the people involved.

That being said, if the original ideas are sound, then there should be
no concern whatsoever about taking another critical look at them with
the people currently leading the project. In fact, there's a good
chance it could lead to improving them.

Yep OK, I don't have an issue discussing any of it and I doubt others do.  That being said, we should probably spend more of our time actually producing Joomla than constantly re-hashing things organizationally.  It's good and healthy, but let's not turn this into a distraction from the real goals.

 

> It sounds to me like what concerns you here is something about OSM, not the
> overall structure.  You don't seem to be talking about any other aspect of
> the structure.  

Yes, OSM is part of the structure and that's the part that personally
concerns me the most. The control that OSM currently wields (and is
planning on wielding) is of concern to me because of the exclusive,
inconsistent, and sub-standard approach to very important and
sensitive project issues.

There is nothing of substance in there to even comment on, just negative and vague notions.  You will have to do better than that.  I certainly don't share those views with you.

 

But, again, my aim was to open the discussion to the overall approach
rather than just focus on OSM, which is one small (albeit quickly
growing) part of the puzzle.

That certainly isn't how it comes off to me, but I'll take your word on it. :-)

 

> OSM most certainly does not "control the Joomla Project" and
> never has.  I think OSM *is* focusing on serving the financial and legal
> needs of the Joomla project.  I also think they are doing a pretty good job
> of it, given the circumstances.  

I guess I don't understand the extent of the phrase "given the
circumstances." Sure, there's plenty of work to be done and OSM has
been doing a yeoman's job of handling the legal issues that have
plagued the project for years. But the Joomla trademark was officially
granted in August 2008 and the bulk of those legal issues should have
tapered off long ago. The "courtroom era" of our history should be
over.

The Joomla trademark was *registered in the united states* in August of 2008.  It is *not* yet protected in the same way world wide, and as you know this is not just a US project.  That is a continuing struggle for OSM as I understand it, and from my limited understanding of trademark law how you manage the trademark affects your ability to defend it or attain it differently in different jurisdictions.  I think its safe to say that neither you nor I have the background or knowledge in international trademark law to make any sort of informed judgement of what OSM should be doing with respect to those problems.  

If we had started registering the trademark in 2005 when the project was founded I suspect  we wouldn't have nearly the problems that we have had and things would be much different.  Hindsight is 20/20 however and that didn't happen... so it goes.

 

However, lately OSM has been dictating how things are "going to be."
They make decisions about who to hire for development, how to run
aspects of the Joomla websites, among other things. All without
discussion with the Leadership Team. Does OSM acting autonomously with
the "power of the pursestrings" really make it the controlling entity
of the project?

I don't think so.  OSM doesn't control what the leadership teams do, nor what code gets written or included in the software.  I prefer to see OSM as a valuable partner in getting things done.  I may not agree with everything they do and they may not agree with everything I do, but we are most certainly all on the same team trying to make Joomla better.

 

> There are certainly things that can be

> improved for sure, but you haven't really given anything concrete to comment

> on here that I can tell.  

 

There are plenty of examples, but here's a simple and current one...

 

Within days of hearing about the developer conference in New York, I

decided to attend. Since I'm a member of the Leadership Team and also

a member of the Production Working Group, I thought it was appropriate

for me to attend, being in the "developer corner" of the project, even

if OSM wasn't willing to pay for my expenses. Is my name on any of the

materials or announcements about the event? Not one mention. It's an

example of personal issues getting in the way of a professional and

inclusive approach. Why is this event so different from the others

that it's being managed by the President of OSM instead of the person

normally in charge of events? These are yet more reasons to re-

evaluate where the best use of existing skills belong.

Actually this is an interesting example.  I don't really know the specifics of why you may or may not be in the main billing.  I suppose it may be due to you being much more involved in the design aspects of development then architectural things and being knee deep in how everything works under the hood.

Who is the person normally in charge of events?  It used to be Alex under the Core Team, but he was on leave for months and the Core Team doesn't really exist anymore.  The project has never held an event quite like this and it was Elin's idea.  She saw a need and made something happen when no one else was doing it -- I personally think that is to be congratulated.  That is pretty much the model for how things get done in open source projects from my experience.  Could she have handed it off to someone?  Sure, but I don't know that I fault her for seeing it through.  I mean, I could list you a VAST number of things like that where I've picked up a ball that was dropped on something, or found an area with a need and worked to fill it, or something like that and it wasn't specifically in my "job title".  I think you could say similar things about most of the people that have served on the Core Team and OSM over the years. 

As an aside, I am shocked that there hasn't been a front page announcement or two about this event.

> I think we have just as much of a problem in what

> you described, "The teams within Joomla should be focusing on developing

> software and building the ecosystem and community", as we do in OSM serving

> the financial and legal needs of the Joomla project.

Absolutely. And we need a plan to fix that, which is directly related

to the structure and how to communicate that to the public to get

their buy-in. With a tepid interest in public contributions to the

project, that communication is obviously not happening.

Yep, couldn't agree more.  I also think that specifically you and I and the whole PLT should be much more focused on how we can make that better from a production perspective than worrying about what OSM is or isn't doing.  

> I'm all about self-evaluation and figuring out ways to get better.  Lets get

> the OSM board members on this list and have a conversation about making the

> future brighter, but lets focus on specific, concrete things that we can

> affect change on.

Absolutely agree. I don't want this to be WWIII or a bash-fest. I'm

really hoping for a positive outcome that everyone, internally and

externally, can be on board with.

Good, hopefully others will chime in with thoughts so that this doesn't turn into an email version of a phone conversation between the two of us. :-)

- Louis

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla Leadership" group.
To post to this group, send email to joomla-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-leaders...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.

[Brad Baker]

I do not think the aforementioned diagram represents the intent of
that particular announcement. It was hurriedly added to the post,
among other things. That being said, that is history. Focusing on the
present, for me personally, I feel OSM is an integral partner/part of
the Joomla project. It was created to be just that.

Could OSM do things better? Could we the LT do things better? Could
the Community Leadership Team do things better? Could I do things
better? I say YES to all of those questions.

Do we need better communication between OSM and the LT? If so.. what
about giving OSM write access to this list?
That being said, to expect that OSM needs to talk to the LT about
everything they do day to day is not practical, just as the Prod WG
does not need my input on development issues. We all have or
respective parts to play to complete the "whole" that the Joomla
Project is, of which, to repeat myself, OSM is an integral and
invaluable part. I am both proud and thankful to the current members
of the OSM board as well as the large number of people who assist OSM
on a day to day basis. It's a pretty thankless job I think.. and I bet
they do not get the recognition that many others on this project do,
just due to the nature of their "business".

As for some of the other issues mentioned, I think some border on
personal issues that should be handled off list, between you and Elin
in harmony with the project CoC. I have no issues at all with how this
Dev conf was handled either, though I was not privy to everything, and
neither did I expect to be. It seems logical for Elin who is in NYC
and who's idea it was to be coordinating it. I do seriously doubt she
wanted to handle it just to ensure you were, as you seem to imply
"snubbed" in some way.

I hope all who are able to attend enjoy it as much as I have enjoyed
meeting up with Joomla/OSM people in the past.

Like Louis says, perhaps others have their own views on the issues you
raised. I'll leave that to them to address.

On Dec 2, 9:40 am, Louis Landry <louis.lan...@joomla.org> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Mark Dexter]

To be brief, I agree with what Louis and Brad have stated above. I don't have any issues with the way OSM is doing things. I think they are doing a great job, and a lot of what they do is essential but not "glamorous". I'm grateful that I don't have to spend a lot of time understanding the nuances of different software licenses, for example.

I also am not overly concerned with who does what, as long as people are moving things forward and working for the benefit of the project.

My main problem with this type of discussion is that I view it as a distraction from what I believe are much more important issues. These include:

1. How do we get 1.6 out the door?
2. How do we create a development cycle that works for users and for the development community?
3. How do we encourage and allow more people to contribute to the project?

Those are my thoughts. Mark

[Ron Severdia]

First a response to Louis... :)

On Dec 1, 2:40 pm, Louis Landry <louis.lan...@joomla.org> wrote:

>  Understanding the social dynamics of the old core team and its history
> isn't really in the scope of this conversation and not overly relevant to
> our future.  

But that's part of the issue I raise. Since different things were
relevant to the group of people who outline the plan 18 months ago and
there's be an influx of people since, I think that warrants a
discussion around the direction. I don't mean opening every nook and
cranny, but a fair amount of due diligence to give the new people both
the detailed briefing of the color of the flag they're supposed to
carry and call into question anything that doesn't ring true.

> I am not speaking for the entire Core Team and OSM board, they will have to
> speak for themselves.  I am saying exactly what I said.  The text document
> was written before the diagram was created and *I don't think* everyone saw
> and signed off on the diagram before the article was published.

But my point is if YOU hadn't signed off on it as a CT member, it
doesn't matter if others did or didn't. That automatically means the
*entire* CT didn't sign off on it. I don't know if you were the only
one or not, but if you were, the statement is still correct.

> I suppose that depends on the diagram in question... and this wasn't a Tufte
> diagram.  When making a diagram like the one that was created there is so
> much that goes into what words go where and how exhaustive lists have to be
> and what can be assumed.

C'mon.. this is a diagram of the project structure and list of
responsibilities. You're right.. this is *not* one of Tufte's
diagrams.. it's far less complex.

> There are so many aspects of the Joomla project and things that people do
> that to list them all and put them into their own little boxes or circles is
> not really feasible.  

Nor necessary. This isn't rocket science. It doesn't need to be down
the the minute details, but there needs to be a solid amount of
information there to make it as unambiguous as possible.

> I can cop to that, but if thats the case then there should have not been a
> diagram in that post because it wasn't something that was hashed out with
> all of the necessary parties and agreed upon with that very acute attention
> to detail as a goal.  If thats an exercise we want to embark upon thats
> fine, but if that is how people are looking at the diagram in question than
> it is in fact potentially misleading and not representative of the facts
> just because it didn't go through the scrutiny it should have.

I'm not sure I would have called an official communique from the
project about a major shift in structure and management an "exercise."
To me, it's just part of "doing business" and running the project. And
it's not just the diagram we're talking about, it's the announcement
itself.

> Yep OK, I don't have an issue discussing any of it and I doubt others do.
>  That being said, we should probably spend more of our time actually
> producing Joomla than constantly re-hashing things organizationally.  It's
> good and healthy, but let's not turn this into a distraction from the real
> goals.

Yes, the project has a history of rehashing issues. But it's not
rehashing if they're issues important to the health of the project. So
I disagree that the issues I've raised fall into that category.

> There is nothing of substance in there to even comment on, just negative and
> vague notions.  You will have to do better than that.  I certainly don't
> share those views with you.

That's OK you don't share those views. I'm being intentionally vague
so as not to go into every childish detail of those situations.
Instead, I'm summarizing the actions of those involved. If my
summaries aren't jogging anyone's memory, then we best leave it there
for now.

> The Joomla trademark was *registered in the united states* in August of
> 2008.  It is *not* yet protected in the same way world wide, and as you know
> this is not just a US project.  That is a continuing struggle for OSM as I
> understand it, and from my limited understanding of trademark law how you
> manage the trademark affects your ability to defend it or attain it
> differently in different jurisdictions.  I think its safe to say that
> neither you nor I have the background or knowledge in international
> trademark law to make any sort of informed judgement of what OSM should be
> doing with respect to those problems.

Absolutely agree. But once the trademark is set in the US, it becomes
*easier* (in relative terms) to register/enforce in other areas of the
world. I am in no way an expert but I know just enough to be
dangerous. :P

>
> I don't think so.  OSM doesn't control what the leadership teams do, nor
> what code gets written or included in the software.  

It does if it holds the pursestrings. And if it has the ability to
autonomously hire developers to contribute to the software, then
essentially it *does* control what code gets written. The thing that
makes this muddy is that it's you and Andrew. I trust both of you to
do the right thing. But what's to stop OSM from funding a dozen more
developers to contribute to the codebase? That's one of many questions/
issues floating around this arrangement.

If OSM controls marketing, PR, events and a multitude of other areas,
it also dictates who on the LT attends events, participates in
marketing efforts, and can essentially "contain" a LT member by virtue
of it's actions and cash. When all LT members aren't treated equally
(or given equal opportunity) then OSM is definitely controlling what
the LT does.

> I prefer to see OSM as
> a valuable partner in getting things done.  I may not agree with everything
> they do and they may not agree with everything I do, but we are most
> certainly all on the same team trying to make Joomla better.

I prefer to see it that way as well. But OSM is not the *only* way to
get things done, nor is it always the *best* way to get things done.

> Who is the person normally in charge of events?  It used to be Alex under
> the Core Team, but he was on leave for months and the Core Team doesn't
> really exist anymore.  The project has never held an event quite like this
> and it was Elin's idea.  She saw a need and made something happen when no
> one else was doing it -- I personally think that is to be congratulated.
>  That is pretty much the model for how things get done in open source
> projects from my experience.  

I will always applaud initiative. But it doesn't end there. One has to
also be willing to give up control to others to help.

> As an aside, I am shocked that there hasn't been a front page announcement
> or two about this event.

I'm not. This is an item you were supposed to read between the lines
in my previous comments.

> Yep, couldn't agree more.  I also think that specifically you and I and the
> whole PLT should be much more focused on how we can make that better from a
> production perspective than worrying about what OSM is or isn't doing.

Yes, but you're mixing teams here. I know it's a lot of the same
people, but the PWG focuses on the software production and the LT
leads the project. So many of us wear multiple hats and if I and
others only wore the PWG hat, that would be absolutely the correct
approach. But as members of the LT, we should be defining the project
direction, its goals, and how to best achieve them... not OSM.

> Good, hopefully others will chime in with thoughts so that this doesn't turn
> into an email version of a phone conversation between the two of us. :-)

Ya ya.. I know, I know.. :P

[Ron Severdia]

Now a response to Brad... :)

On Dec 1, 4:22 pm, Brad Baker <brad.ba...@community.joomla.org> wrote:
> I do not think the aforementioned diagram represents the intent of
> that particular announcement. It was hurriedly added to the post,
> among other things.

I understand that. But you wrote the announcement, added the diagram
and, as far as I know, worked with a number of people to get it where
it was when posted. Maybe something so important shouldn't have been
rushed.

> That being said, that is history. Focusing on the
> present, for me personally, I feel OSM is an integral partner/part of
> the Joomla project. It was created to be just that.

I have the hope that OSM in an integral partner. But that's what was
one of the initial ideas behind this discussion. In what capacity?
Does everyone in the current leadership agree wholeheartedly with the
results of the meeting of the minds 18 months ago? Or just partially?
Are there any showstoppers?

>
> Do we need better communication between OSM and the LT? If so.. what
> about giving OSM write access to this list?

Before posting my original post, I asked if you could add them to this
list. Did you see that? I'd definitely prefer they speak their minds
as well.

> That being said, to expect that OSM needs to talk to the LT about
> everything they do day to day is not practical, just as the Prod WG
> does not need my input on development issues. We all have or
> respective parts to play to complete the "whole" that the Joomla
> Project is, of which, to repeat myself, OSM is an integral and
> invaluable part.

I never suggested that was necessary. However, I will say that
including the LT on their decisions BEFORE they arrive at them is
essential. Not during, not after. It doesn't matter whether or not
it's outside of the LT's jurisdiction. If it is, the LT may have input
on the issue, but the buck stops with OSM. Just like OSM may have
input on issues that the LT has in their domain. The buck has to stop
somewhere. The question is: is it stopping where we want it to
considering the time and turnover in leadership?

I am both proud and thankful to the current members
> of the OSM board as well as the large number of people who assist OSM
> on a day to day basis. It's a pretty thankless job I think.. and I bet
> they do not get the recognition that many others on this project do,
> just due to the nature of their "business".

I agree to a certain extent. But that's the nature of the beast for
everyone involved in an open source project. We can't whine about how
much thanks we deserve for something when it's supposed to be free,
right?

[Ron Severdia]

My responses to Mark... :)

On Dec 1, 4:45 pm, Mark Dexter <mark.dex...@community.joomla.org>
wrote:

> To be brief, I agree with what Louis and Brad have stated above. I don't
> have any issues with the way OSM is doing things. I think they are doing a
> great job, and a lot of what they do is essential but not "glamorous". I'm
> grateful that I don't have to spend a lot of time understanding the nuances
> of different software licenses, for example.

I somewhat agree, but this discussion isn't a "satisfaction survey" of
OSM (though some of that may be applicable). It's to discuss if the
decisions made by the project leadership and OSM are still applicable
to today's leadership.

> I also am not overly concerned with who does what, as long as people are
> moving things forward and working for the benefit of the project.

That's OK. But I'm *highly* concerned about what the definition of
"benefit of the project" means. Joomla's history is littered with bad
experiences with that phrase at the forefront. And I don't want
history to repeat itself on my "watch." I'm concerned because it seems
we're heading in that direction. I hope things can get back on track
though.

> My main problem with this type of discussion is that I view it as a
> distraction from what I believe are much more important issues. These
> include:
>
> 1. How do we get 1.6 out the door?
> 2. How do we create a development cycle that works for users and for the
> development community?
> 3. How do we encourage and allow more people to contribute to the project?

Well, those things are directly related to the issues I raise. In
fact, they're a big part of the reason why I raised them.

[Brad Baker]

On Dec 2, 1:46 pm, Ron Severdia <ron.sever...@joomla.org> wrote:
> Now a response to Brad... :)
>
> On Dec 1, 4:22 pm, Brad Baker <brad.ba...@community.joomla.org> wrote:
>
> > I do not think the aforementioned diagram represents the intent of
> > that particular announcement. It was hurriedly added to the post,
> > among other things.
>
> I understand that. But you wrote the announcement, added the diagram
> and, as far as I know, worked with a number of people to get it where
> it was when posted. Maybe something so important shouldn't have been
> rushed.

You can say that again ;)

I never wrote that announcement, however I had a hand in uploading
numerous charts that were given to me before it was published. If you
want to take me to task on the mistakes I have made in the history of
my association with this project I am sure there are many more you can
find. If I have played a part in harming you due to not checking
things enough before uploading that image, all I can do at this point
is say sorry. I can't undo history.

>
> > That being said, that is history. Focusing on the
> > present, for me personally, I feel OSM is an integral partner/part of
> > the Joomla project. It was created to be just that.
>
> I have the hope that OSM in an integral partner. But that's what was
> one of the initial ideas behind this discussion. In what capacity?
> Does everyone in the current leadership agree wholeheartedly with the
> results of the meeting of the minds 18 months ago? Or just partially?
> Are there any showstoppers?
>
>
>
> > Do we need better communication between OSM and the LT? If so.. what
> > about giving OSM write access to this list?
>
> Before posting my original post, I asked if you could add them to this
> list. Did you see that? I'd definitely prefer they speak their minds
> as well.

I think if others on this LT agree, this would be a great idea too.

>
> > That being said, to expect that OSM needs to talk to the LT about
> > everything they do day to day is not practical, just as the Prod WG
> > does not need my input on development issues. We all have or
> > respective parts to play to complete the "whole" that the Joomla
> > Project is, of which, to repeat myself, OSM is an integral and
> > invaluable part.
>
> I never suggested that was necessary. However, I will say that
> including the LT on their decisions BEFORE they arrive at them is
> essential.

I disagree. The sheer amount of work consulting with everyone on all
matters makes this a logistical nightmare. I do agree that better
communication could certainly reduce the frustration you are feeling.
I think that works both ways, as well as fostering a spirit of
together-ness rather than the natural tendency we have to view it as a
them and us scenario.

> Not during, not after. It doesn't matter whether or not
> it's outside of the LT's jurisdiction. If it is, the LT may have input
> on the issue, but the buck stops with OSM. Just like OSM may have
> input on issues that the LT has in their domain. The buck has to stop
> somewhere. The question is: is it stopping where we want it to
> considering the time and turnover in leadership?

Do you want someone to blame or hold accountable for the failures you
see of our combined project? It sounds that way.

>
> I am both proud and thankful to the current members
>
> > of the OSM board as well as the large number of people who assist OSM
> > on a day to day basis. It's a pretty thankless job I think.. and I bet
> > they do not get the recognition that many others on this project do,
> > just due to the nature of their "business".
>
> I agree to a certain extent. But that's the nature of the beast for
> everyone involved in an open source project. We can't whine about how
> much thanks we deserve for something when it's supposed to be free,
> right?

We can however, encourage one another to ensure we keep contributors
and not scare them away. We can also set the tone of the environment
in which all our volunteers "work". I try to always be positive and
encouraging to others, even if I do not agree with them.



I feel for you Ron.. some of these thoughts you are expressing (except
for the personal ones) are ones that many of us 'old timers' have had
to work through, whether you believe me or not. There is a limit to
the amount of people that can logistically be included in every
decision such a large project like ours makes. At some point I became
comfortable with not having to be consulted on everything, and now I
actually don't want to have to be included in everything.

I know it's not that simple however. I am happy to continue this
discussion with you, but I do think it needs breaking down into parts.
At the moment is a collection of your frustrations and complaints
about the past and present, some of which none of us can ever change
now. Is it the paying of Andrew and Louis you want to talk about? Is
it the event that Elin is managing you want to talk about? Let's break
it off into parts then, it's far easier to address IMHO.

[Ron Severdia]

On Dec 1, 7:17 pm, Brad Baker <brad.ba...@community.joomla.org> wrote:

> I never wrote that announcement, however I had a hand in uploading
> numerous charts that were given to me before it was published. If you
> want to take me to task on the mistakes I have made in the history of
> my association with this project I am sure there are many more you can
> find. If I have played a part in harming you due to not checking
> things enough before uploading that image, all I can do at this point
> is say sorry. I can't undo history.

I appreciate the apology, but I'm not asking for one. Nobody's
perfect. But if it had been a collective effort by the CT/LT, it would
have been a collective mistake...or maybe not a mistake at all. In
either case, owning up to a mistake allows us to ask how to fix it and
move forward. Removing the image from the announcement doesn't fix it.
In fact, quite the opposite.

> > I never suggested that was necessary. However, I will say that
> > including the LT on their decisions BEFORE they arrive at them is
> > essential.
>
> I disagree. The sheer amount of work consulting with everyone on all
> matters makes this a logistical nightmare.

Not "consulting"..."including". If I'd received an email that there
was a scheduled LT/OSM discussion around hiring developers, I would
have made a concerted effort to attend (or any meeting about project-
related business). If I couldn't make the meeting, it would be nice to
get a recap from someone on it. If I wasn't a stakeholder in that
meeting, at least I'd be abreast of the situation instead of being
blindsided by a public announcement. If I were a stakeholder and
missed my opportunity to give input, I'd have to suck it up knowing
that the process keeps moving with the majority. Given that scenario,
there's no need for every person to be at every meeting or allocate
for the absurd amount of time needed to do individual consultations.
There are many ways to make it work.

> I do agree that better
> communication could certainly reduce the frustration you are feeling.

Possibly. But, again, these issues are tangential to the main issues
outlined in my first post.

> Do you want someone to blame or hold accountable for the failures you
> see of our combined project? It sounds that way.

No, but I'm hoping people in general are willing to take
responsibility for their own actions, whether a success or failure.
And I'm hoping for the individual ability to recognize the need for
this when needed.

>
> We can however, encourage one another to ensure we keep contributors
> and not scare them away. We can also set the tone of the environment
> in which all our volunteers "work". I try to always be positive and
> encouraging to others, even if I do not agree with them.

The same applies as I said to Mark. What makes you think this thread
wasn't started with that point in mind? The bulk of them are already
scared away (which should be obvious though there are some still in
denial). There are people scared away that barely know Joomla at all,
let alone the "usual suspects." Keeping a positive attitude is
important, but it's not going solve real world problems.

> I feel for you Ron.. some of these thoughts you are expressing (except
> for the personal ones) are ones that many of us 'old timers' have had
> to work through, whether you believe me or not. There is a limit to
> the amount of people that can logistically be included in every
> decision such a large project like ours makes. At some point I became
> comfortable with not having to be consulted on everything, and now I
> actually don't want to have to be included in everything.

As I said before, there are ways to accomplish this. But those
involved in the process have opted for an exclusive approach instead
of an inclusive one.

> At the moment is a collection of your frustrations and complaints
> about the past and present, some of which none of us can ever change
> now.

Please re-read my first post. This is the goal of this thread. Any
"frustrations and complaints" are side issues that just give
additional context to the situation.

Let me digress a moment on this point (this is in general, not just
you, Brad). I have had a multitude of conversations with almost every
LT on a number of issues. When I'm "vague" about something it means
that I expect you to read between the lines and understand/remember
the context of previous discussions/experiences. I expect to keep this
discussion on that level without dragging out specific conversations,
dates, details, etc. just to prove a point. So don't feign ignorance.
If you're honestly confused or don't understand something, I'm happy
to discuss or refresh memories in private. So I'd appreciate some
consistency between what you've said to me in private and your
opinions expressed here.

> Is it the paying of Andrew and Louis you want to talk about? Is
> it the event that Elin is managing you want to talk about? Let's break
> it off into parts then, it's far easier to address IMHO.

I don't have any problem whatsoever paying Louis and Andrew. But I
know many people do. I do think the process and decision has been
mismanaged and miscommunicated to the public. That's a shame because
it didn't have to be that way. Then again, the project has never been
very good at communicating with the public.

I'm all for breaking things to make them easier to discuss. Please
review my original post and pick a point to start.

[Louis Landry]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ron Severdia <ron.se...@joomla.org> wrote:

First a response to Louis... :)

On Dec 1, 2:40 pm, Louis Landry <louis.lan...@joomla.org> wrote:

>  Understanding the social dynamics of the old core team and its history
> isn't really in the scope of this conversation and not overly relevant to
> our future.  

But that's part of the issue I raise. Since different things were
relevant to the group of people who outline the plan 18 months ago and
there's be an influx of people since, I think that warrants a
discussion around the direction. I don't mean opening every nook and
cranny, but a fair amount of due diligence to give the new people both
the detailed briefing of the color of the flag they're supposed to
carry and call into question anything that doesn't ring true.

Then ask questions and you will get answers.  I don't think the social dynamics and history of the core team have anything to play in it, but I am one of those remaining people from well before 18 months ago who still thinks the structure is fine.  That being said I am happy to answer questions you have and discuss specific issues you raise.

 

> I am not speaking for the entire Core Team and OSM board, they will have to
> speak for themselves.  I am saying exactly what I said.  The text document
> was written before the diagram was created and *I don't think* everyone saw
> and signed off on the diagram before the article was published.

But my point is if YOU hadn't signed off on it as a CT member, it
doesn't matter if others did or didn't. That automatically means the
*entire* CT didn't sign off on it. I don't know if you were the only
one or not, but if you were, the statement is still correct.

> I suppose that depends on the diagram in question... and this wasn't a Tufte
> diagram.  When making a diagram like the one that was created there is so
> much that goes into what words go where and how exhaustive lists have to be
> and what can be assumed.

C'mon.. this is a diagram of the project structure and list of
responsibilities. You're right.. this is *not* one of Tufte's
diagrams.. it's far less complex.

> There are so many aspects of the Joomla project and things that people do
> that to list them all and put them into their own little boxes or circles is
> not really feasible.  

Nor necessary. This isn't rocket science. It doesn't need to be down
the the minute details, but there needs to be a solid amount of
information there to make it as unambiguous as possible.

I don't think creating an exhaustive list of structure and responsibilities, while accurately depicting the nuances of some of the complex responsibilities is necessarily a simple task actually.  And that goes to what you were saying.  As an example, there are aspects of "events" that the CLT should handle, there are aspects that the at-large community should handle, and there are aspects of events that OSM should handle.  There are several things like that which really don't live in a singular box, and working it all out such that everyone is happy with it (we've tried several times) is not a trivial process.

 

> I can cop to that, but if thats the case then there should have not been a
> diagram in that post because it wasn't something that was hashed out with
> all of the necessary parties and agreed upon with that very acute attention
> to detail as a goal.  If thats an exercise we want to embark upon thats
> fine, but if that is how people are looking at the diagram in question than
> it is in fact potentially misleading and not representative of the facts
> just because it didn't go through the scrutiny it should have.

I'm not sure I would have called an official communique from the
project about a major shift in structure and management an "exercise."
To me, it's just part of "doing business" and running the project. And
it's not just the diagram we're talking about, it's the announcement
itself.

By exercise I wasn't referring to what already happened, but what we might embark upon if you want to go down that road creating such a diagram.

Actually, I'm not concerned with either the announcement or the diagram.  That is well in the past.  I am much more concerned with the present and future.

 

> Yep OK, I don't have an issue discussing any of it and I doubt others do.
>  That being said, we should probably spend more of our time actually
> producing Joomla than constantly re-hashing things organizationally.  It's
> good and healthy, but let's not turn this into a distraction from the real
> goals.

Yes, the project has a history of rehashing issues. But it's not
rehashing if they're issues important to the health of the project. So
I disagree that the issues I've raised fall into that category.

I think the term rehashing still applies :-) ... I'm still not exactly sure which specific issues you are raising.  What I've gathered so far is that you are concerned about OSM's actions with regard to a) paying people; b) managing the dev conference event; c) trademark policies/rules.  Is that somewhere close to correct?

Maybe it would be helpful if we broke out the specific issues into threads so that we can hash them out (sorry couldn't resist) with some clarity.

 

> There is nothing of substance in there to even comment on, just negative and
> vague notions.  You will have to do better than that.  I certainly don't
> share those views with you.

That's OK you don't share those views. I'm being intentionally vague
so as not to go into every childish detail of those situations.
Instead, I'm summarizing the actions of those involved. If my
summaries aren't jogging anyone's memory, then we best leave it there
for now.

> The Joomla trademark was *registered in the united states* in August of
> 2008.  It is *not* yet protected in the same way world wide, and as you know
> this is not just a US project.  That is a continuing struggle for OSM as I
> understand it, and from my limited understanding of trademark law how you
> manage the trademark affects your ability to defend it or attain it
> differently in different jurisdictions.  I think its safe to say that
> neither you nor I have the background or knowledge in international
> trademark law to make any sort of informed judgement of what OSM should be
> doing with respect to those problems.

Absolutely agree. But once the trademark is set in the US, it becomes
*easier* (in relative terms) to register/enforce in other areas of the
world. I am in no way an expert but I know just enough to be
dangerous. :P

I'm not sure that is true.  I doubt very seriously if the trademark courts in Europe and other places really care whether a trademark is registered in the US.  From my limited reading its handled very differently in different countries.  You can count me in that group of people who know's just enough to be dangerous though, that's why OSM has a top notch law firm handling trademark work.

 

>
> I don't think so.  OSM doesn't control what the leadership teams do, nor
> what code gets written or included in the software.  

It does if it holds the pursestrings. And if it has the ability to
autonomously hire developers to contribute to the software, then
essentially it *does* control what code gets written. The thing that
makes this muddy is that it's you and Andrew. I trust both of you to
do the right thing. But what's to stop OSM from funding a dozen more
developers to contribute to the codebase? That's one of many questions/
issues floating around this arrangement.

I personally would be stoked if OSM could hire a dozen more people to contribute to the code base.  I'd also love it if OSM could hire people to maintain our Web sites and manage/monitor our mailing lists and whatever else is relevant to keeping the project going.  The Red Cross pays people to get things done.  So does IEEE, Amnesty International, Mozilla, and many other non-profits.

What's to stop any of the Joomla related companies, or say IBM or Google or Yahoo or Microsoft or the NRA or anyone from hiring a dozen or so people to contribute to the codebase?  Why is that better?  Because they are outside of the project and have their own external agendas and goals?  Because they can't "take over" the project?

What goes into the codebase is decided by the people with write access to the trunk.  The group holding the keys to that is the production leadership team.  I mean we can go down some pretty seriously paranoid directions where by OSM stops paying the bills for the servers that run our SVN repository because they don't like a decision that was made too, but thats pretty out there IMO.  Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't stop us as a group of people from developing whatever it is that we want to build.

Let's flip it around.  What is to stop company X from paying you to put a particular "save icon" or whatever into the tree.  If it is inappropriate there is going to be a whole host of people pointing that out.  If it isn't, then they just did all of us a favor by making your life a little better as you did something that you wanted to do anyway.

I'm not saying that there aren't issues to discuss, or that there aren't valid concerns.  I'm just not buying into this having anything to do with OSM controlling the project.  OSM is part of the project.  If they ask me to do something all I have to do is say NO if I don't think its appropriate.

 

If OSM controls marketing, PR, events and a multitude of other areas,
it also dictates who on the LT attends events, participates in
marketing efforts, and can essentially "contain" a LT member by virtue
of it's actions and cash. When all LT members aren't treated equally
(or given equal opportunity) then OSM is definitely controlling what
the LT does.

The only point I see in that is that OSM can not pay someone's way while paying someone else's way.  That's always been the case.  Johan used to fly all over the world on OSM's budget and it did make some people jealous, most of us were happy to not get the jet lag. :-)  I have flown all over the place to a lot of events too.  Generally I believe it's because I am the best person to attend the event (or so I tell myself).  So assuming that is an issue, what would you propose is a solution to that problem?

 

> I prefer to see OSM as
> a valuable partner in getting things done.  I may not agree with everything
> they do and they may not agree with everything I do, but we are most
> certainly all on the same team trying to make Joomla better.

I prefer to see it that way as well. But OSM is not the *only* way to
get things done, nor is it always the *best* way to get things done.

I don't think OSM is a way to get things done.  OSM is an entity that has assets, and has dedicated people willing to help get something done when its needed.  That's certainly been my experience.

 

> Who is the person normally in charge of events?  It used to be Alex under
> the Core Team, but he was on leave for months and the Core Team doesn't
> really exist anymore.  The project has never held an event quite like this
> and it was Elin's idea.  She saw a need and made something happen when no
> one else was doing it -- I personally think that is to be congratulated.
>  That is pretty much the model for how things get done in open source
> projects from my experience.  

I will always applaud initiative. But it doesn't end there. One has to
also be willing to give up control to others to help.

> As an aside, I am shocked that there hasn't been a front page announcement
> or two about this event.

I'm not. This is an item you were supposed to read between the lines
in my previous comments.

> Yep, couldn't agree more.  I also think that specifically you and I and the
> whole PLT should be much more focused on how we can make that better from a
> production perspective than worrying about what OSM is or isn't doing.

Yes, but you're mixing teams here. I know it's a lot of the same
people, but the PWG focuses on the software production and the LT
leads the project. So many of us wear multiple hats and if I and
others only wore the PWG hat, that would be absolutely the correct
approach. But as members of the LT, we should be defining the project
direction, its goals, and how to best achieve them... not OSM.

You were talking about community involvement, and I believe that starts at the grass roots.  Which means at the PLT and CLT levels.

 

> Good, hopefully others will chime in with thoughts so that this doesn't turn
> into an email version of a phone conversation between the two of us. :-)

Ya ya.. I know, I know.. :P

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla Leadership" group.
To post to this group, send email to joomla-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-leaders...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership?hl=en.

[Brad Baker]

For now.. I'll just reply to one point and allow room for others to
comment.

On Dec 2, 4:05 pm, Ron Severdia <ron.sever...@joomla.org> wrote:


> Let me digress a moment on this point (this is in general, not just
> you, Brad). I have had a multitude of conversations with almost every
> LT on a number of issues. When I'm "vague" about something it means
> that I expect you to read between the lines and understand/remember
> the context of previous discussions/experiences. I expect to keep this
> discussion on that level without dragging out specific conversations,
> dates, details, etc. just to prove a point. So don't feign ignorance.
> If you're honestly confused or don't understand something, I'm happy
> to discuss or refresh memories in private. So I'd appreciate some
> consistency between what you've said to me in private and your
> opinions expressed here.

Have I expressed to you my personal frustrations with others (not just
one person) in private before? Yes. So have you in return. That
doesn't mean that I feel the same way about someone the next day. I
usually try to talk to people who frustrate me most, and see if
possible I can get along with them better.

Also, just because I may have similar.. how can I put it.. tendencies
to you on certain issues, I also reserve the right to share my views
or concerns at a time I want, not when you want me to. Besides, things
that were an issue today for me, may not be an issue for me tomorrow.

Your point is noted though, and in future I will pay more attention to
the matters I discuss with you (and others) in private. That is the
trouble about talking in private, you say things that you otherwise
would not say in public. People can easily misread the reason you are
sharing information with them as well, and perhaps view it as a cry
for help, or an indication that they want you to go 'into bat' for
them. Again.. I've made mistakes in this area, as you have pointed
out. For that I am sorry.


You will also note, that I have agreed with you on a number of points,
so I am not against you, or anyone else for that matter.


/off topic
This public discussion is going far better than I expected it to..
we're all behaving like civilized people. Good work.. it might inspire
more to chip in.. or to future public discussions.

[Ron Severdia]

> I don't think creating an exhaustive list of structure and responsibilities,
> while accurately depicting the nuances of some of the complex
> responsibilities is necessarily a simple task actually.  

Again, it doesn't have to be an exhaustive list into minute detail.
However, it *does* need to convey enough information and accurately.
We're all smart folks here. Is that beyond our ability? So far it is.

> And that goes to
> what you were saying.  As an example, there are aspects of "events" that the
> CLT should handle, there are aspects that the at-large community should
> handle, and there are aspects of events that OSM should handle.  There are
> several things like that which really don't live in a singular box, and
> working it all out such that everyone is happy with it (we've tried several
> times) is not a trivial process.

There are a finite number of top level areas on the original chart. If
I'd been involved in a year-long discussion about the structure of the
organization, I'd be able to both write and demonstrate what you're
talking about in order to make it clear, for example, what aspects of
events belong to which team. Again, it doesn't need to go down to the
level of detail where we're deciding what kind of coffee to serve at
the event, but I think we're smart enough to find the balance.

> By exercise I wasn't referring to what already happened, but what we might
> embark upon if you want to go down that road creating such a diagram.
>

The diagram is only half the point. The team descriptions is the other
half. Those two things should jive. So all this discussion about
changing the diagram is missing that the accompanying text describes
the diagram the way it was posted. Removing the diagram doesn't change
the the descriptions so the who thing starts to fall apart when people
get hyper-focused on just the chart.

> Actually, I'm not concerned with either the announcement or the diagram.
>  That is well in the past.  I am much more concerned with the present and
> future.

Agree 100%. Discussing the chart is just one of the impetuses for
having this discussion to begin with so it's just context that is not
the main goal.

> I think the term rehashing still applies :-) ... I'm still not exactly sure
> which specific issues you are raising.  

The issues I've raised are clearly outlined in my first post. Yes,
we've digressed a bit to give additional information, some of which is
related/important and some of which isn't. But the original point
still stands.

> What I've gathered so far is that
> you are concerned about OSM's actions with regard to a) paying people; b)
> managing the dev conference event; c) trademark policies/rules.  Is that
> somewhere close to correct?

Yes, concern about OSM's actions in general (which far outnumber the
three examples you mention) caused me to write the first post. I've
given a bit of context for each of those three things you mention, but
the primary discussion was intended to be around whether or not the
results of the summit from 18 months ago by the team that was present
at the time are still serving us. I argue they aren't.

> I personally would be stoked if OSM could hire a dozen more people to
> contribute to the code base.  I'd also love it if OSM could hire people to
> maintain our Web sites and manage/monitor our mailing lists and whatever
> else is relevant to keeping the project going.  The Red Cross pays people to
> get things done.  So does IEEE, Amnesty International, Mozilla, and many
> other non-profits.

The difference between those organizations and Joomla is that OSM
doesn't run the project. The Leadership Team runs the project. If
that's incorrect, please correct me and explain why it's the case. I'm
sure the Red Cross would be happy to see another entity hire a bunch
of health workers to go out into the world and work with them to heal
the sick. But they wouldn't let them wear Red Cross uniforms while
they did it. However, this is deviating from the main point again...

> What's to stop any of the Joomla related companies, or say IBM or Google or
> Yahoo or Microsoft or the NRA or anyone from hiring a dozen or so people to
> contribute to the codebase?  Why is that better?  Because they are outside
> of the project and have their own external agendas and goals?  Because they
> can't "take over" the project?

I never said it was better. I think that's almost the same
circumstances.

> What goes into the codebase is decided by the people with write access to
> the trunk.  The group holding the keys to that is the production leadership
> team.  I mean we can go down some pretty seriously paranoid directions where
> by OSM stops paying the bills for the servers that run our SVN repository
> because they don't like a decision that was made too, but thats pretty out
> there IMO.  Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't stop us as a group of
> people from developing whatever it is that we want to build.

Absolutely...I'm not THAT paranoid. :)

> Let's flip it around.  What is to stop company X from paying you to put a
> particular "save icon" or whatever into the tree.  If it is inappropriate
> there is going to be a whole host of people pointing that out.  If it isn't,
> then they just did all of us a favor by making your life a little better as
> you did something that you wanted to do anyway.

True.But keep in mind that the "host of people" is relative to the
item you're referring to. An icon, which is more visible than code,
would obviously have a wider range of visibility/scrutiny than a line
of code (which could have a chance of going unnoticed). But let's
frame your example in the project process sense. If a project
announcement or process is inappropriate, haven't we all come to
expect a host of people to point it out? We're not talking about the
people who will argue and complain at every turn. I'm talking about
people we are valued members of the Joomla public with earnest
concerns that are being brushed off. What makes that different than an
icon or line of code, if it is?

> I'm not saying that there aren't issues to discuss, or that there aren't
> valid concerns.  I'm just not buying into this having anything to do with
> OSM controlling the project.  OSM is part of the project.  If they ask me to
> do something all I have to do is say NO if I don't think its appropriate.

What about if we ask them to do something? They just say no? That's
where the issue lies when one entity has the money and the other
doesn't. If OSM doesn't need LT approval on financial matters
(outside of legal, financial and administrative aspects) then that
entity has more power than the LT itself.

> The only point I see in that is that OSM can not pay someone's way while
> paying someone else's way.  That's always been the case.  Johan used to fly
> all over the world on OSM's budget and it did make some people jealous, most
> of us were happy to not get the jet lag. :-)  I have flown all over the
> place to a lot of events too.  Generally I believe it's because I am the
> best person to attend the event (or so I tell myself).  So assuming that is
> an issue, what would you propose is a solution to that problem?

I'm not jealous and I've paid my way to every single Joomla event I've
attended. I'm cool with that. If there's a budget for it, I'm happy
for the project to pay for it, but that hasn't happened. Again, we go
back to the money. Who gets to decide who the project pays to attend
events? If that's OSM, why is that the case? If that's the events team/
lead, why is that part of OSM? These are issues that are directly
related to my original post.

[Ron Severdia]

On Dec 1, 9:27 pm, Brad Baker <brad.ba...@community.joomla.org> wrote:

> Have I expressed to you my personal frustrations with others (not just
> one person) in private before? Yes. So have you in return. That
> doesn't mean that I feel the same way about someone the next day. I
> usually try to talk to people who frustrate me most, and see if
> possible I can get along with them better.

That's totally fair. Thanks for making that clear.

>
> Also, just because I may have similar.. how can I put it.. tendencies
> to you on certain issues, I also reserve the right to share my views
> or concerns at a time I want, not when you want me to. Besides, things
> that were an issue today for me, may not be an issue for me tomorrow.

Totally far as well. And I don't expect you to repeat things you said
in confidence to me or anything else in this forum. I was just saying
that to everyone that I expected there to be consistency in things
they actually *did* say here.

> Your point is noted though, and in future I will pay more attention to
> the matters I discuss with you (and others) in private. That is the
> trouble about talking in private, you say things that you otherwise
> would not say in public. People can easily misread the reason you are
> sharing information with them as well, and perhaps view it as a cry
> for help, or an indication that they want you to go 'into bat' for
> them. Again.. I've made mistakes in this area, as you have pointed
> out. For that I am sorry.

I wasn't saying that so you'd suddenly stop sharing thoughts and
opinions privately. I haven't shared any of them here and I don't
expect you to unless you want to. However, I just want people to be
consistent between those discussions whether or not you reveal the
details of those discussions.

>
> You will also note, that I have agreed with you on a number of points,
> so I am not against you, or anyone else for that matter.

I find that when people agree with me in private, it's emphatic. But
in public it's often timidly. I'm not saying that's the case with you,
Brad, but that's what I've experienced. I understand that feelings and
circumstances can change but I don't think discussing project issues
publicly is a reason for that type of change.

>
> /off topic
> This public discussion is going far better than I expected it to..
> we're all behaving like civilized people. Good work.. it might inspire
> more to chip in.. or to future public discussions.

You pessimist... :P It helps that we're all friends. We have our
disagreements, but we fundamentally respect one another.. at least I
hope so. :)

[Sam Moffatt]

So I've been behind on my email for a while and I was going to write a
blog post covering the situation but I guess as you said the other day
Ron, you're like a blunt instrument. Might end up putting a blog post
together but the one I had is far too positive for where this
discussion has landed.

So disappointing thing first.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Ron Severdia <ron.se...@joomla.org> wrote:
> Absolutely agree. But once the trademark is set in the US, it becomes
> *easier* (in relative terms) to register/enforce in other areas of the
> world. I am in no way an expert but I know just enough to be
> dangerous. :P

I see this is not only naif but arrogant. Trademark is done in the US
as noted by Louis and this almost reflects on how little you
understand OSM as a group and what they're trying to do. From what I
know, OSM is still continuing to work on securing trademarks around
the world and work on enforcement where relevant in situations. The
specifics are legal issues that can't be publicly discussed because
thats how legal things work (and I don't even know the half it, nor do
I care - that's OSM's job). It is suffice to say legals will continue
to be an issue. It isn't easier by any stretch of the imagination by
having a US trademark. There are parts of the world that Joomla! cares
about that has very little interest in the US and what it thinks. For
example places like Thailand have forced generics on multinational US
drug companies, the EU is another example as Louis points out. At the
end of the day most of the world doesn't care about what America does
so long as they're not ruining their backyard or similar. American
legal precedence has no binding anywhere but America, so it is this
style attitude from Americans that give your country a bad name.


===


So, as noted by others the article was highly proofed sans diagram and
everyone agreed on the wording. Then a diagram was added. You note
that the diagram doesn't change the text and the text remains. The
issue is that for the most part the text and the diagram is not out of
sync, but the main problem is the diagram actually contains more
detail than what the text provides. The diagram enumerated silo's for
people to work within that was actually incorrect from what was agreed
at the summit. From what I can tell the diagram was drafted by someone
who wasn't at the summit and mistakes happen. The diagram had nowhere
near as much proofing as the text and as you note the diagram provides
a strong clarification than the text, so if anything we should have
been proofing it even more than the text. But that is done, we're
working forwards. From what I can tell, the person making a lot of
noise about the disappearance of the diagram was one of the people
directly involved in originally drafting it.

This was picked up pretty quickly by people within the CoC and OSM at
the time and we worked through fixing the diagram and this was then
approved by the OSM and CoC. At this point I took up the task to
update it. I ran into a few issues and couldn't get onto someone to
get that resolved. Like most things that don't happen immediately, I
didn't write it down and it dropped off my list of things to do
because I forgot it. To be honest, I dropped the ball here. So the
diagram has lived on incorrectly since then.

Now someone has since come along and realised that the wrong diagram
is still there. They've removed it in line with the decision that was
technically originally made. Should it have happened sooner?
Definitely. Should it have been replaced with the correct version at
the time? Sure. Did any of this happen? Nope, but we're all human. And
again, this is my fault.

To be honest I don't pay much attention to our old announcements but
it appears that someone does. Not sure why, perhaps just in case it
changes. Someone notices that it has disappeared and asks why. People
don't know and a lot of innuendo appears. Without understanding the
whole issues, someone puts the diagram back. This is actually a part I
see as unprofessional because it presents a schism because the diagram
disappears (for good reason) and then it reappears and then I finally
kill it and put that I've killed it. This is itself an internal
communication break down, instead of putting it back we needed to work
out why it was first removed (because its wrong and sends the wrong
message) and take appropriate action. In this case instead of putting
it back we needed to communicate why it was removed. It being put back
sends a mixed message of confusion which is perhaps irresponsible but
its happened. We're human, and hopefully people will forgive us for
being human (I'm not changing from being human either, it is the most
enjoyable existence I've seen yet).

When I removed the image there, the project teams one was also removed
because I figure it was based off the original diagram (a reasonable
methodology). The new diagram was incorrect as the original one was
and that is life. Nobody's fault but mine for not fixing the diagram
originally so the new diagram is then based off the old incorrect
diagram as is by design incorrect. I've since noticed that this itself
has reappeared. Again this seems a tad irresponsible because we know
there are issues with diagrams and I'm not sure if the OSM has seen
it, until all of this had started I hadn't seen it. In fact it wasn't
until I saw a third party post a link to the page referencing a
diagram after the removal of the other diagram that I saw it. As far
as I can tell this has appeared some time in the last week or so with
a page refresh. Not sure exactly when but according to Google Cache's
Nov 27th version of the page it is completely different. I've now
removed it and put a note there so this mysterious diagram doesn't
appear out of nowhere for a third time. As you yourself Ron say,
diagrams are powerful things so it would be nice to get some of this
at least notified by people.


I've been seeing recently dissent over OSM taking a larger role in
Joomla!'s life and to be honest it reminds of days of old where people
lacked immense trust, particularly in this thread from yourself Ron
but from other places in general. OSM as an organisation has been
tasked with many things from the COC. Some of these has been taking
over events in which Ryan has done an admirable job. OSM picked up
events at the request of the COC due to some people having issues with
commitments and shifting away - we can also shift it back the other
way, but eventually someone makes a decision and at the moment that is
Ryan. Other aspects have been looking at running an experiment to see
the feasibility of paying people on the project to do what they do
best: contribute to the project. The last area is something very
sensitive however the results are proof themselves. At the end of the
day we've been unable to both co-ordinate people effectively mostly
due to the immense amount of time it takes. In my own case merely
keeping up with my inbox takes the better part of my day on top of
everything else that I need to do from maintaining the infrastructure
that keeps the project alive to trying to plan future projects to
improve the life of everyone in the project.

So we asked OSM to trial something, how would we pay the core
developers to not only write code but facilitate community
development, to help improve the quality of code submissions and
ensure the development of the general community. Personally it is for
me noticeable the buzz that has occurred and the change over time that
OSM has run the experiment and we've made an amazing amount of
progress in a small amount of time. Both Andrew and Louis have done
astoundingly well and we're in a much better place at the moment. As
they continue to work we're getting a much more polished looking
release with all of the features that I feel everyone finds cool. Some
of the other work they've been doing is simply taking the time to help
improve the community through guidance and support.

One of the outcomes of the summit was a refocus for the Production
Working Group and Community Working Group on what they're both trying
to achieve. So for Production it was an ability to focus more on what
matters most for Joomla!: getting out the next release of Joomla!. For
Community it was working on building the community and supporting
those environments. This left OSM in a strange way to pick up some
more responsibility in areas and they've been doing this admirably.

So do I feel that OSM is being overbearing? Nope. With my Leadership
hat on am I worried? Nope. With my COC hat on am I worried? Still
nope. With my general community hat on do I see a problem with OSM
picking up slack? Definitely not, the more the merrier. At the end of
the day we can silo people and prevent them from working on things. I
don't particularly like the idea of forcing people not to do work,
especially when we need as many hands as possible.

With regards the dev event I didn't know you were coming and I didn't
see this as much of a problem. You're a designer as far as I can tell
and the focus seems to be a lot more lower level and more intense. I
don't see it as any particular malice and if it wasn't for Microsoft's
support I wouldn't be there myself either, I'd be phoning it in from
Australia at 2am in the morning. Andrew was always flying over as far
as I can tell and was that an issue for me? Not particularly, flying
halfway around the world for a few days of conferencing to me doesn't
feel like fun as you don't get over the jet lag before you leave.
Having been at OSDC the week before where I presented I'm already
tired from half a weeks worth of travel at four hours a day. Again, if
not for Microsoft I probably wouldn't be there and hopefully now that
I've gotten this out of the way (amongst trying to organise some
meetings about getting Joomla! working better on IIS and their Web
Platform), I'll be able to get a blog out on what I've been doing for
the last week and a bit. Of course if none of it happened I would be
happy to stay at home, not be jetlagged and be paid another fortnight
and a bit worth of pay from my day job (as opposed to spending a
fortnight not being paid).

I did have more about that in a greater blog post that addressed a lot
of what I've raised here that I would have loved to have put live
before I left Australia on Monday lunch time (AU time, GMT+10; works
out to be Friday some time) but again, you put up this post and I felt
it more appropriate to try and respond to this instead of a blog post.
More work for me, but that is life.

This is a long email, now its time to get something to eat and a
coffee before I fall over from not eating enough AND being tired. At
some point I'll have to work again to get new diagrams up or perhaps
we just forget the diagrams for the time being. If you want to change
the structure again then I guess its rather pointless putting much
more effort into diagrams that will change anyway. Mind you we're
missing responses on this threads to a whole heap of people but beyond
yourself I don't see any great desire to shift the way things are set
up. OSM needs to be involved in that discussion as well because
they're impacted on any change as well. Most of the CoC is around but
again they've not all communicated here either.

As Louis suggested if you've got individual specific grievances with
things, lets split that out into individual threads and discuss that
there.

So to conclude:
We apologise for the inconvenience.

Cheers,

Sam

[Ron Severdia]

Welcome to the discussion...

On Dec 2, 12:14 pm, Sam Moffatt <sam.moff...@joomla.org> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Ron Severdia <ron.sever...@joomla.org> wrote:
> > Absolutely agree. But once the trademark is set in the US, it becomes
> > *easier* (in relative terms) to register/enforce in other areas of the
> > world. I am in no way an expert but I know just enough to be
> > dangerous. :P
>
> I see this is not only naif but arrogant. Trademark is done in the US
> as noted by Louis and this almost reflects on how little you
> understand OSM as a group and what they're trying to do.

Nothing arrogant about it. I made a broad generalization that's true
in a broad sense. You can nitpick it to death by country by country to
"disprove" it but it's just that... nitpicking and going off-course
from the main point.

> From what I
> know, OSM is still continuing to work on securing trademarks around
> the world and work on enforcement where relevant in situations. The
> specifics are legal issues that can't be publicly discussed because
> thats how legal things work (and I don't even know the half it, nor do
> I care - that's OSM's job).

So you "don't know the half of it" and you're going to claim *I'm*
arrogant for making a generalization that's generally true? Let's try
to keep the discourse civil here.

> American
> legal precedence has no binding anywhere but America, so it is this
> style attitude from Americans that give your country a bad name.

I didn't state otherwise. You extrapolated that. But you just made a
sweeping generalization about Americans to condemn my sweeping
generalization of trademark processes. Nice one. Let's stay away from
insults and stay on topic, cool?

> From what I can tell the diagram was drafted by someone
> who wasn't at the summit and mistakes happen. The diagram had nowhere
> near as much proofing as the text and as you note the diagram provides
> a strong clarification than the text, so if anything we should have
> been proofing it even more than the text.

It's these kinds of statements that make me scratch my head. A summit
was organized, people gathered from miles around to discuss a
"renaissance" of the Joomla Project for the future.... but nobody can
be bothered with getting the communication of that message correct and
in a timely fashion. What does that say?

> This was picked up pretty quickly by people within the CoC and OSM at
> the time and we worked through fixing the diagram and this was then
> approved by the OSM and CoC. At this point I took up the task to
> update it. I ran into a few issues and couldn't get onto someone to
> get that resolved.

Why are you so vague with "I ran into a few issues"? What kinds of
issues would delay this?

> Now someone has since come along and realised that the wrong diagram
> is still there. They've removed it in line with the decision that was
> technically originally made. Should it have happened sooner?
> Definitely. Should it have been replaced with the correct version at
> the time? Sure. Did any of this happen? Nope, but we're all human. And
> again, this is my fault.

I don't think it's your fault alone. I think it's a collective fault.
I don't say that because I want to start nailing people on crosses,
but in order to understand the *problems* at hand and fix them.

> To be honest I don't pay much attention to our old announcements but
> it appears that someone does. Not sure why, perhaps just in case it
> changes.

This is yet another statement that makes me scratch my head. It makes
me think you have no sense of the size of the project or the power of
a single official announcement. And also how a single word in an
announcement can turn the whole message on its head. Can you wrap your
head around that reality? People build their entire businesses on
Joomla, feed their families, and focus far more than you can imagine
(evidently) on the direction and news from the project.

> Someone notices that it has disappeared and asks why. People
> don't know and a lot of innuendo appears.

Innuendo and assumption appear when things "mysteriously" change and
reappear. This has nothing to do with Amy, or anyone else, noticing
and everything to do with professionalism.

> Without understanding the
> whole issues, someone puts the diagram back. This is actually a part I
> see as unprofessional because it presents a schism because the diagram
> disappears (for good reason) and then it reappears and then I finally
> kill it and put that I've killed it. This is itself an internal
> communication break down, instead of putting it back we needed to work
> out why it was first removed (because its wrong and sends the wrong
> message) and take appropriate action.

It has sent the "wrong message" for six months and all of a sudden
it's time to remove it without any mention of such? Do you at all
understand the repercussion of such actions?

> In this case instead of putting
> it back we needed to communicate why it was removed. It being put back
> sends a mixed message of confusion which is perhaps irresponsible but
> its happened. We're human, and hopefully people will forgive us for
> being human

The mixed message was already there with the first posting and
subsequent removal.

> Again this seems a tad irresponsible because we know
> there are issues with diagrams and I'm not sure if the OSM has seen
> it, until all of this had started I hadn't seen it. In fact it wasn't
> until I saw a third party post a link to the page referencing a
> diagram after the removal of the other diagram that I saw it.

So you had plans to replace that image for some time and hadn't gotten
around to it. But you hadn't even seen the image until only recently
when you saw a link to it on another site? Now you say you're "not
sure" if OSM had seen it? That all sounds very wishy-washy.

> As far
> as I can tell this has appeared some time in the last week or so with
> a page refresh. Not sure exactly when but according to Google Cache's
> Nov 27th version of the page it is completely different.

Yep, yet another mystery for the Hardy Boys to solve. :P

> I've been seeing recently dissent over OSM taking a larger role in
> Joomla!'s life and to be honest it reminds of days of old where people
> lacked immense trust, particularly in this thread from yourself Ron
> but from other places in general.

I think there are a number of reasons for this, but trust is a big
issue. If the public doesn't trust OSM but the LT does, doesn't that
put the project in quite a pickle?

> OSM as an organisation has been
> tasked with many things from the COC.

My understanding is, and according to the OSM bylaws, that the COC
doesn't "task" OSM (or anyone). They are an official committee within
OSM that appoints and removes members of the OSM board of directors.
That's it. Are there other undocumented broader-reaching powers of the
Community Oversight Committee?

> Some of these has been taking
> over events in which Ryan has done an admirable job. OSM picked up
> events at the request of the COC due to some people having issues with
> commitments and shifting away - we can also shift it back the other
> way, but eventually someone makes a decision and at the moment that is
> Ryan.

This is what my original post aims to get at. Is the shifting of
responsibilities from the project to OSM still serving the overall
project goals? What about other decisions reached at the summit?

> At the end of the
> day we've been unable to both co-ordinate people effectively mostly
> due to the immense amount of time it takes.

Not true. Yes, it takes time. But the inability to coordinate people
towards a given task/goal or get them to contribute is not a black
box. The goal of attracting contributors has been a primary issues
since I became involved in the project a few years ago and it has only
deteriorated since. That means the actions of the project and OSM are
not working and a new approach is needed.

> So we asked OSM to trial something, how would we pay the core
> developers to not only write code but facilitate community
> development, to help improve the quality of code submissions and
> ensure the development of the general community.

Who is the "we" in this statement? The COC? It wasn't the LT.

> Both Andrew and Louis have done
> astoundingly well and we're in a much better place at the moment.

I won't belittle their efforts by any stretch but, being actively
involved in Joomla 1.6 development process myself, it's way too soon
to characterize their activity as "astoundingly well."

> Some
> of the other work they've been doing is simply taking the time to help
> improve the community through guidance and support.

Yes, but Andrew and others were doing this before money came into the
picture, which proves it's possible to do this without finances if
approached properly. In fact, the Project has made it this far without
paying people so what has changed to force that reality? As I've
stated many times before, I think both Louis and Andrew deserve to be
paid, if only for past work. But the approach and handling of it was
severely flawed.

> One of the outcomes of the summit was a refocus for the Production
> Working Group and Community Working Group on what they're both trying
> to achieve. So for Production it was an ability to focus more on what
> matters most for Joomla!: getting out the next release of Joomla!. For
> Community it was working on building the community and supporting
> those environments. This left OSM in a strange way to pick up some
> more responsibility in areas and they've been doing this admirably.

Good to know. I don't know what you mean by "strange way." Can you
elaborate? It seems that OSM became the catch-all for anything not
deemed production or community related (which I'd argue would be hard
to find something that isn't one or the other). Is that what you're
saying?

> So do I feel that OSM is being overbearing? Nope. With my Leadership
> hat on am I worried? Nope. With my COC hat on am I worried? Still
> nope. With my general community hat on do I see a problem with OSM
> picking up slack? Definitely not, the more the merrier. At the end of
> the day we can silo people and prevent them from working on things. I
> don't particularly like the idea of forcing people not to do work,
> especially when we need as many hands as possible.

All fair opinions I can respect. I disagree that OSM isn't overbearing
though.

How's this for an idea... What if OSM was *the* primary hindrance for
acquiring contributors and increasing public goodwill? Can you give
that question honest and objective consideration?

> With regards the dev event I didn't know you were coming and I didn't
> see this as much of a problem. You're a designer as far as I can tell
> and the focus seems to be a lot more lower level and more intense.

Do you know anything about me or what I do for a living?

> As Louis suggested if you've got individual specific grievances with
> things, lets split that out into individual threads and discuss that
> there.

Again, this is not about grievances. This is about leading the project
and the issues surrounding the definition of the project structure.
Making this a "Ron & Elin" issue is a dead-end road. It's about the
idea that the plan created by those present at the summit 18 months
ago (and whatever subsequent conversations followed) needs a harder
look to 1) make sure those who have recently joined the leadership
ranks are fully on board with it, and 2) that it's a solid and
effective plan that is in the best interest of the project. Maybe if
bite-sized chunks are needed for focus, we can start with those two
things.

[Ole Ottosen]

Hi Ron,

 

Think it is welcomed to have an open and public discussion about what "getting back to basics" and setting direction forward is all about.

 

At this point we have no need to directly revice, as we this summer finally managed to finalize and publish the first step of the year long work of restructuring, having discussed different proposals and solutions, so that the now former Core Team could cease to exist, and the getting back to basics WGs could be created.

 

The main target of all this has been: Focus.

 

Getting back to basics is not, in my opinion, getting back to a situation where a Core Team makes all calls in the hidden for all areas of the project, and even play a double role in being the singular decision entity and at same time serve in a role of Community oversight.

 

Instead we reviced the way forward, and created a setup where for example Production could focus at producing, and Production Leadership could make decisions on their own related to their area of focus, the Production WG, without having to come into agreement with the Community WG or OSM in order to get things done. Moving decision making to the focus area, and making sure this is done in the open, by sharing meeting minutes and discussing in public readable lists, in itself is a huge step moving forward.

 

Until now this new route has mostly been visible in the Production WG, but we will soon see a more open Community WG and a more open OSM.

 

You may notice I mention OSM side by side with the WGs, as it being just as important as the two new WGs - and that is because that is the case.

They may not have been very clear in communicating to the public about all the great things they do for the project, and we at the former Core Team obviously wasnt good enough at communicating OSM important role clearly. But the lack of making it visible, doesnt change the fact, that they´ve done and do a remarkable job in the best interest of the project and the community as a whole.

 

In my opening remark I mentioned we didnt directly need to revice, and then mentioned first step was taken.

 

So while we dont need to revice, we certainly still need to take the next steps, and some of these are:

 

1. Make it clear to the joomla! community, and to ourselves, who does what.

In most of joomla history, we never been good at that, and by not being clear we invite for confusion.

We need to tell exactly what OSM and the two WGs do, and how Project Leadership and OSM in a combined effort play an important role of joomla decision making and joomla! future.

 

2. Decide on whether a Community Oversight Committee has a role at all in the new and improved structure.

 

3. Make volunter contributions easier. Steps are taken already, and I have a feeling that developers in particular will see improvements in this area very soon.

 

4. Improve our technical/administrative backbone of all the good processes we have in place for trademark, extension, etc. applying/approvals, for to give to community member a good experience of filling out one or more of our required forms, simply by letting them have a quick reply.

This is an area where we build unneeded frustration, and if this worked better, then the community could also focus at other good stuff instead of waiting in line.

 

This is what matters. The other endless nit picking commenting up and down the walls of who did, and me/she/him said, we sort of grown from. Joomla! is now a grown up, the community in all flavors are amazing, and joomla as a whole is certainly moving in a good direction as I see it.

 

Ole

[Ron Severdia]

Hi Ole... thanks for your thoughts...

On Dec 3, 3:09 am, Ole Ottosen <ole.otto...@joomla.org> wrote:
>
> At this point we have no need to directly revice, as we this summer finally
> managed to finalize and publish the first step of the year long work of
> restructuring, having discussed different proposals and solutions, so that
> the now former Core Team could cease to exist, and the getting back to
> basics WGs could be created.

Glad to hear your take on this. I've been hoping for a little more
clarity in that decision process, but I'm mainly interested in moving
forward.

> The main target of all this has been: Focus.
>
> Getting back to basics is not, in my opinion, getting back to a situation
> where a Core Team makes all calls in the hidden for all areas of the
> project, and even play a double role in being the singular decision entity
> and at same time serve in a role of Community oversight.

Absolutely agree. But, technically speaking, that's the arrangement
right now. The names are different, but little has changed towards
that end. The same people that are on the COC are also on the LT (give
or take half). I don't think the Core Team having oversight over the
project as well as OSM was/is a problem. I think the problem was
chiefly communication and transparency.

> Instead we reviced the way forward, and created a setup where for
> example Production could focus at producing, and Production Leadership could
> make decisions on their own related to their area of focus, the
> Production WG, without having to come into agreement with the Community WG
> or OSM in order to get things done. Moving decision making to the focus
> area, and making sure this is done in the open, by sharing meeting minutes
> and discussing in public readable lists, in itself is a huge step moving
> forward.

Absolutely agree. However, you and I wear two hats (you actually wear
three with the COC)--Leadership Team and Production Working Group. The
hat for the PWG is exactly what you described and I agree that's
exactly what should be the goal. However, what you describe makes the
Leadership Team a hollow entity. It's supposed to be consist of the
leaders from the PWG and the CWG and should be directing the project.
Otherwise, why have a LT at all? Why not just eliminate it and let OSM
run everything except production and the community aspects?

I'm getting a sense that's what some are saying that's the best move
forward in the the best interest of the project. I emphatically
disagree, which is a big part of why I raised the issue if taking
stock to see if that type of structure is still the best way.

> You may notice I mention OSM side by side with the WGs, as it being just as
> important as the two new WGs - and that is because that is the case.
> They may not have been very clear in communicating to the public about all
> the great things they do for the project, and we at the former Core Team
> obviously wasnt good enough at communicating OSM important role clearly. But
> the lack of making it visible, doesnt change the fact, that they´ve done and
> do a remarkable job in the best interest of the project and the community as
> a whole.

So this somewhat confirms my earlier comment/question about the role.
OSM will *never* be on equal footing with the WG/LT because it is able
to act autonomously and with full financial control. You and others
might say that there's the COC to keep them in check, but I don't see
that happening and, according to the bylaws, that's not the purpose of
the COC. And also, as you mentioned, there's the intent of the COC
eventually going away. What then?

Following that scenario through, out of sheer practicality, OSM will
be the ruling entity of the project. If it encompasses all that
diagram/description indicates, it will need to grow twenty-fold or
more to manage all those responsibilities. With the power of the
finances combined with the "everything else" item on the diagram
(which basically says "everything else" not in the PWG or CWG is an
OSM responsibility), OSM will dwarf the PWG and CWG in size, reach,
influence and control the money. This wasn't the original idea when
setting up OSM and, in my opinion, is a very wrong direction for the
project.

> 1. Make it clear to the joomla! community, and to ourselves, who does what.
> In most of joomla history, we never been good at that, and by not being
> clear we invite for confusion.
> We need to tell exactly what OSM and the two WGs do, and how Project
> Leadership and OSM in a combined effort play an important role of joomla
> decision making and joomla! future.

I'm all for clear communication. But OSM has failed time and time
again to communicate project issues in a clear, effective, and non-
offensive manner. When we had a Communications Team (which was later
undermined by OSM and the entire team resigned) there was a short-
lived period of time where communication and PR was clear and
effective. If you don't agree this has been a recurring failure of
OSM, you haven't been paying attention.

> 2. Decide on whether a Community Oversight Committee has a role at all in
> the new and improved structure.

It's my understanding this decision has already been made. Is that not
the case?

> 3. Make volunter contributions easier. Steps are taken already, and I have a
> feeling that developers in particular will see improvements in this area
> very soon.

I hope you're right, but I think you're mistaken. Almost three years
ago, when Louis & I had several long conversations about redesigning
the Joomla.org website, increasing contributors was one of the primary
goals to accomplish. At that time, contributions were lower than
they'd ever been. A new website with a primary focus on that issue was
supposed to be part of an overall strategy to lure contributors. I
wasn't on the CT at the time so I wasn't part of discussing the
overall efforts, but it demonstrates that for a number of years now
the amount of contributors has been in decline. The working groups
used to have a ton of people (weren't there like 18 groups?) but now
have far less. The contributors have *shrunk* in that period of
time...not grown. And out of necessity (not choice), we've ended up
with a very small number of people contributing to the codebase. This
creates burnout and other issues that we can't just throw money at. So
this lack of contributors isn't a new issue. It's one that's years old
and has been getting worse. Doesn't that mean what we're doing isn't
working and we need to have a fresh approach?

> 4. Improve our technical/administrative backbone of all the good processes
> we have in place for trademark, extension, etc. applying/approvals, for to
> give to community member a good experience of filling out one or more of our
> required forms, simply by letting them have a quick reply.
> This is an area where we build unneeded frustration, and if this worked
> better, then the community could also focus at other good stuff instead of
> waiting in line.

There's nothing *good* about any of these experiences for a member of
the public. I personally submitted three domains for approval over a
year ago and haven't heard a word since. I'm far from being alone.
There are countless stories of upset people in this area. But this is
an example of what I mean by getting "back to basics." This is OSM's
*job* and it's been bungled for years. But now OSM is supposed to
extend it's reach into other areas? Why don't they get the basics down
first before branching out? That question applies to all areas of the
project, not just OSM. And there are many areas that frustrating for
the public.

> This is what matters. The other endless nit picking commenting up and down
> the walls of who did, and me/she/him said, we sort of grown from. Joomla! is
> now a grown up, the community in all flavors are amazing, and joomla as a
> whole is certainly moving in a good direction as I see it.

Thanks for the thoughts... and for staying close to the original point/
questions.

[Sam Moffatt]

Super long double email!

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Ron Severdia <ron.se...@joomla.org> wrote:
> Welcome to the discussion...

Thanks! Should be fun!

>
> On Dec 2, 12:14 pm, Sam Moffatt <sam.moff...@joomla.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Ron Severdia <ron.sever...@joomla.org> wrote:
>> > Absolutely agree. But once the trademark is set in the US, it becomes
>> > *easier* (in relative terms) to register/enforce in other areas of the
>> > world. I am in no way an expert but I know just enough to be
>> > dangerous. :P
>>
>> I see this is not only naif but arrogant. Trademark is done in the US
>> as noted by Louis and this almost reflects on how little you
>> understand OSM as a group and what they're trying to do.
>
> Nothing arrogant about it. I made a broad generalization that's true
> in a broad sense. You can nitpick it to death by country by country to
> "disprove" it but it's just that... nitpicking and going off-course
> from the main point.

I'm not interested in disproving it, I'm just curious about its
validity. We've got examples of people around the world trying to
prevent communities being created using the name due to trademark
issues. I'm not sure I've seen any country that says "If you apply for
a trademark and you've already got a US one we'll either a) give you a
discount, b) ignore any other pending claims, c) just approve you if
there aren't any claims, d) something else *easier* than if you didn't
have a US mark". You say its easier and a broad generalisation that is
true in a broad sense - I just fail to see how. Can you enlighten me?

>
>> From what I
>> know, OSM is still continuing to work on securing trademarks around
>> the world and work on enforcement where relevant in situations. The
>> specifics are legal issues that can't be publicly discussed because
>> thats how legal things work (and I don't even know the half it, nor do
>> I care - that's OSM's job).
>
> So you "don't know the half of it" and you're going to claim *I'm*
> arrogant for making a generalization that's generally true? Let's try
> to keep the discourse civil here.

You're yet to prove your generalisation to be true or supported by
anyone beyond yourself. I've also made a generalisation and given that
we're actively contesting trademarks around the world in addition to
pending applications it would appear it isn't any easier at the
moment. I'm sure our lawyers would also suggest it isn't easier to
register trademarks or protect trademarks in other countries, mind you
they're also biased in some ways but I trust they're more professional
than that.

>
>> American
>> legal precedence has no binding anywhere but America, so it is this
>> style attitude from Americans that give your country a bad name.
>
> I didn't state otherwise. You extrapolated that. But you just made a
> sweeping generalization about Americans to condemn my sweeping
> generalization of trademark processes. Nice one. Let's stay away from
> insults and stay on topic, cool?

Trademark law is legal. Simple as that. You're saying its easier, I'm
suggesting that it isn't binding anywhere but the United States of
America. If something isn't binding else where I again fail to see how
it is *easier*.

>
>> From what I can tell the diagram was drafted by someone
>> who wasn't at the summit and mistakes happen. The diagram had nowhere
>> near as much proofing as the text and as you note the diagram provides
>> a strong clarification than the text, so if anything we should have
>> been proofing it even more than the text.
>
> It's these kinds of statements that make me scratch my head. A summit
> was organized, people gathered from miles around to discuss a
> "renaissance" of the Joomla Project for the future.... but nobody can
> be bothered with getting the communication of that message correct and
> in a timely fashion. What does that say?

It says that someone did up a diagram because they wanted to help out.
Kudos for them for doing the diagram, unfortunately it wasn't quite
accurate but not necessarily their fault. The message on the text was
checked and rechecked, the diagram as noted wasn't. As you note an
important part was missed, a mistake. What does that say? We make
mistakes. Darn, we must be human! Should we do better in future? Sure,
with your guidance I think people will put more importance on ensuring
diagrams are correct.

>
>> This was picked up pretty quickly by people within the CoC and OSM at
>> the time and we worked through fixing the diagram and this was then
>> approved by the OSM and CoC. At this point I took up the task to
>> update it. I ran into a few issues and couldn't get onto someone to
>> get that resolved.
>
> Why are you so vague with "I ran into a few issues"? What kinds of
> issues would delay this?

Not having access to put things in place typically. In fact until a
few days ago I still didn't have the access I needed. But that has
been resolved.

>
>> Now someone has since come along and realised that the wrong diagram
>> is still there. They've removed it in line with the decision that was
>> technically originally made. Should it have happened sooner?
>> Definitely. Should it have been replaced with the correct version at
>> the time? Sure. Did any of this happen? Nope, but we're all human. And
>> again, this is my fault.
>
> I don't think it's your fault alone. I think it's a collective fault.
> I don't say that because I want to start nailing people on crosses,
> but in order to understand the *problems* at hand and fix them.

Yah, sure. Still could have done better - problem I think in this case
is a lack of time which hurt things more than anything. Usually does,
which is unfortunate.

>
>> To be honest I don't pay much attention to our old announcements but
>> it appears that someone does. Not sure why, perhaps just in case it
>> changes.
>
> This is yet another statement that makes me scratch my head. It makes
> me think you have no sense of the size of the project or the power of
> a single official announcement. And also how a single word in an
> announcement can turn the whole message on its head. Can you wrap your
> head around that reality? People build their entire businesses on
> Joomla, feed their families, and focus far more than you can imagine
> (evidently) on the direction and news from the project.

Oh, I definitely understand how changing single words makes entire
differences. Working in local government and now a federally funded
University, I very much understand the importance of even individual
characters in a message. In fact it is law that some organisations in
Australia can regenerate a page *as the user saw it* (not the literal
rendering but all page elements, especially in a complex dynamic page;
Joomla! doesn't do this either which is a problem I'd like to address
at some point but meh). So I can definitely wrap my head around that.
It is nice that people build their entire businesses on Joomla!, great
to see something that I've put a lot of time and effort in is making
people money. It isn't me but again, its nice for them.

>
>> Someone notices that it has disappeared and asks why. People
>> don't know and a lot of innuendo appears.
>
> Innuendo and assumption appear when things "mysteriously" change and
> reappear. This has nothing to do with Amy, or anyone else, noticing
> and everything to do with professionalism.

I agree! This is the statement I'm making! I didn't mention Amy (or
anyone else for that matter, not sure why you do but sure) and it
wasn't a criticism of anyone, it was a statement of fact.

>
>> Without understanding the
>> whole issues, someone puts the diagram back. This is actually a part I
>> see as unprofessional because it presents a schism because the diagram
>> disappears (for good reason) and then it reappears and then I finally
>> kill it and put that I've killed it. This is itself an internal
>> communication break down, instead of putting it back we needed to work
>> out why it was first removed (because its wrong and sends the wrong
>> message) and take appropriate action.
>
> It has sent the "wrong message" for six months and all of a sudden
> it's time to remove it without any mention of such? Do you at all
> understand the repercussion of such actions?

I do understand it, but the point I'm trying to make is that it is a
failure not only external communication but we've failed to
communicate properly internally. Something has happened and it has
been badly communicated. We've made a mistake (again, silly humans!)
but we also put it back without working out first why the original
decision was done. I'm pointing out both actions were examples of poor
communication that we need to fix.

>
>> In this case instead of putting
>> it back we needed to communicate why it was removed. It being put back
>> sends a mixed message of confusion which is perhaps irresponsible but
>> its happened. We're human, and hopefully people will forgive us for
>> being human
>
> The mixed message was already there with the first posting and
> subsequent removal.

Again, I still agree. I'm pointing out we're making an even worse
message but flip flopping around. I'm trying to identify concrete
problems in situations we need to work on improving and accepting
blame for things where I've failed where appropriate.

>
>> Again this seems a tad irresponsible because we know
>> there are issues with diagrams and I'm not sure if the OSM has seen
>> it, until all of this had started I hadn't seen it. In fact it wasn't
>> until I saw a third party post a link to the page referencing a
>> diagram after the removal of the other diagram that I saw it.
>
> So you had plans to replace that image for some time and hadn't gotten
> around to it. But you hadn't even seen the image until only recently
> when you saw a link to it on another site? Now you say you're "not
> sure" if OSM had seen it? That all sounds very wishy-washy.

This is a reference to the project-teams image which is what I start
the paragraph with not the one in the announcement, apologies for the
confusion.

>
>> As far
>> as I can tell this has appeared some time in the last week or so with
>> a page refresh. Not sure exactly when but according to Google Cache's
>> Nov 27th version of the page it is completely different.
>
> Yep, yet another mystery for the Hardy Boys to solve. :P

Perhaps, not sure I get the Americanism (a presumption there?).

>
>> I've been seeing recently dissent over OSM taking a larger role in
>> Joomla!'s life and to be honest it reminds of days of old where people
>> lacked immense trust, particularly in this thread from yourself Ron
>> but from other places in general.
>
> I think there are a number of reasons for this, but trust is a big
> issue. If the public doesn't trust OSM but the LT does, doesn't that
> put the project in quite a pickle?

Indeed it poses an interesting question for a new thread somewhere.
What is the source of the schism? Not sure that embedding it into this
already long thread is the most appropriate.

>
>> OSM as an organisation has been
>> tasked with many things from the COC.
>
> My understanding is, and according to the OSM bylaws, that the COC
> doesn't "task" OSM (or anyone). They are an official committee within
> OSM that appoints and removes members of the OSM board of directors.
> That's it. Are there other undocumented broader-reaching powers of the
> Community Oversight Committee?

You're right, we asked them politely and they accepted. Tasked gives
the wrong impression, apologies for the miswording again.

>
>> Some of these has been taking
>> over events in which Ryan has done an admirable job. OSM picked up
>> events at the request of the COC due to some people having issues with
>> commitments and shifting away - we can also shift it back the other
>> way, but eventually someone makes a decision and at the moment that is
>> Ryan.
>
> This is what my original post aims to get at. Is the shifting of
> responsibilities from the project to OSM still serving the overall
> project goals? What about other decisions reached at the summit?

Indeed, we've deviated off topic and I'd like to see individual
examples of things and flesh out what has and hasn't worked. Again
since we've wandered. Perhaps start a new thread per grievance and we
can then flesh them out and discuss solutions to problems.

>
>> At the end of the
>> day we've been unable to both co-ordinate people effectively mostly
>> due to the immense amount of time it takes.
>
> Not true. Yes, it takes time. But the inability to coordinate people
> towards a given task/goal or get them to contribute is not a black
> box. The goal of attracting contributors has been a primary issues
> since I became involved in the project a few years ago and it has only
> deteriorated since. That means the actions of the project and OSM are
> not working and a new approach is needed.

Fortunately correlation isn't causality :)

>
>> So we asked OSM to trial something, how would we pay the core
>> developers to not only write code but facilitate community
>> development, to help improve the quality of code submissions and
>> ensure the development of the general community.
>
> Who is the "we" in this statement? The COC? It wasn't the LT.

Yes, the COC. Apologies for confusion again.

>
>> Both Andrew and Louis have done
>> astoundingly well and we're in a much better place at the moment.
>
> I won't belittle their efforts by any stretch but, being actively
> involved in Joomla 1.6 development process myself, it's way too soon
> to characterize their activity as "astoundingly well."

Well that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it just as I've
statement mine. Perhaps I'm overusing superlative language towards
them because I'm excited about some of the stuff I've been coming out
of them.

>
>> Some
>> of the other work they've been doing is simply taking the time to help
>> improve the community through guidance and support.
>
> Yes, but Andrew and others were doing this before money came into the
> picture, which proves it's possible to do this without finances if
> approached properly. In fact, the Project has made it this far without
> paying people so what has changed to force that reality? As I've
> stated many times before, I think both Louis and Andrew deserve to be
> paid, if only for past work. But the approach and handling of it was
> severely flawed.

I can't speak for them personally but I believe they were getting to
the point of making a hard decision to not be able to do that because
it wasn't sustainable for them to donate so much time for nothing. As
both are effectively consultants, they don't have a regular day job to
support them as a more ensured thing so they've got a hard balancing
effort. We've gotten to this point mostly on the back of people who
have been supported. Toowoomba Regional Council had the flexibility to
support Andrew in his work and I think might have even contributed
towards him and 1.6 as well. I'd suggest that if anything TRC has
provided more for the history of this Project than has ever really
been recognised. Andrew also did a fundraising run himself which must
have been an incredible swallow for his pride and I have immense
respect that he was willing and able to do that. Perhaps Louis can
speak up to say if there are reasons why he'd like to get paid for his
contributions and how that would be more sustainable. I'd like to get
paid too and it'd mean I'd spend less time on my day job and more time
on Joomla. The approach and the handling of it was perhaps done
awkwardly, so lets push it out into a new thread and discuss what we
did wrong so its clear for everyone, discuss what we could have
changed and work on some strategies for improving so we don't make
this mistake next time.

>
>> One of the outcomes of the summit was a refocus for the Production
>> Working Group and Community Working Group on what they're both trying
>> to achieve. So for Production it was an ability to focus more on what
>> matters most for Joomla!: getting out the next release of Joomla!. For
>> Community it was working on building the community and supporting
>> those environments. This left OSM in a strange way to pick up some
>> more responsibility in areas and they've been doing this admirably.
>
> Good to know. I don't know what you mean by "strange way." Can you
> elaborate? It seems that OSM became the catch-all for anything not
> deemed production or community related (which I'd argue would be hard
> to find something that isn't one or the other). Is that what you're
> saying?

They did become the catch all, aimed at more towards the more legal or
fiscal focused things. I agree that a lot of stuff should land in
either production or community and some stuff ended up in OSM because
at the time nobody was available to pick it up. Perhaps some of it
needs to move around, I can see this thread is where you aimed to put
that discussion but we've diverged heavily from that point so yeah,
new thread perhaps?

>
>> So do I feel that OSM is being overbearing? Nope. With my Leadership
>> hat on am I worried? Nope. With my COC hat on am I worried? Still
>> nope. With my general community hat on do I see a problem with OSM
>> picking up slack? Definitely not, the more the merrier. At the end of
>> the day we can silo people and prevent them from working on things. I
>> don't particularly like the idea of forcing people not to do work,
>> especially when we need as many hands as possible.
>
> All fair opinions I can respect. I disagree that OSM isn't overbearing
> though.
>
> How's this for an idea... What if OSM was *the* primary hindrance for
> acquiring contributors and increasing public goodwill? Can you give
> that question honest and objective consideration?
>
>> With regards the dev event I didn't know you were coming and I didn't
>> see this as much of a problem. You're a designer as far as I can tell
>> and the focus seems to be a lot more lower level and more intense.
>
> Do you know anything about me or what I do for a living?

No I don't, which is why I've quantified it. From what I've seen of
your work within the project you're a designer (UI issues, icons,
templates [like j.org but also bluestork admin in 1.6]) which is again
why I didn't see it as a problem that you weren't listed on a dev
event. I'm just commenting on my perspective of what has happened more
than anything.

>
>> As Louis suggested if you've got individual specific grievances with
>> things, lets split that out into individual threads and discuss that
>> there.
>
> Again, this is not about grievances. This is about leading the project
> and the issues surrounding the definition of the project structure.
> Making this a "Ron & Elin" issue is a dead-end road. It's about the
> idea that the plan created by those present at the summit 18 months
> ago (and whatever subsequent conversations followed) needs a harder
> look to 1) make sure those who have recently joined the leadership
> ranks are fully on board with it, and 2) that it's a solid and
> effective plan that is in the best interest of the project. Maybe if
> bite-sized chunks are needed for focus, we can start with those two
> things.

I've suggested a few different threads throughout such as a more on
topic project structure thread addressing parts of the structure that
are wrong, issues with our communication and how we can improve there,
issues with OSM's relationship to the community. I don't think making
it a Ron & Elin thing is where I was heading, I'm puzzled again about
the introduction of another name here but sure. If we've got issues,
lets get some threads created and start working through them. Perhaps
if we've got enough new blood we need to do another summit somewhere
and definitely get people not only a) face to face but b) on top of
everything and rehash the structure where things aren't working. Bite
sized chunks are always handy because it is easier to handle smaller
items than large I'm not entirely sure, perhaps there is another
thread! Should we have a summit? Perhaps, not entirely sure.
Scheduling these things is always fun but if you think its worth it
lets get started on it.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Ron Severdia <ron.se...@joomla.org> wrote:
> I'm all for clear communication. But OSM has failed time and time
> again to communicate project issues in a clear, effective, and non-
> offensive manner. When we had a Communications Team (which was later
> undermined by OSM and the entire team resigned) there was a short-
> lived period of time where communication and PR was clear and
> effective. If you don't agree this has been a recurring failure of
> OSM, you haven't been paying attention.

I personally wouldn't put the failure of Comms at the feet of OSM when
it really fell apart due to lack of direction after Louis left (its
not Louis fault either). That is unfortunate but I wouldn't put it at
OSM's feet because the failure of Comms wasn't because of OSM and it
wasn't even their responsibility either. If OSM is taking heat for
that then this is really something I feel is completely unfair and
undeserved.

>> 4. Improve our technical/administrative backbone of all the good processes
>> we have in place for trademark, extension, etc. applying/approvals, for to
>> give to community member a good experience of filling out one or more of our
>> required forms, simply by letting them have a quick reply.
>> This is an area where we build unneeded frustration, and if this worked
>> better, then the community could also focus at other good stuff instead of
>> waiting in line.
>
> There's nothing *good* about any of these experiences for a member of
> the public. I personally submitted three domains for approval over a
> year ago and haven't heard a word since. I'm far from being alone.
> There are countless stories of upset people in this area. But this is
> an example of what I mean by getting "back to basics." This is OSM's
> *job* and it's been bungled for years. But now OSM is supposed to
> extend it's reach into other areas? Why don't they get the basics down
> first before branching out? That question applies to all areas of the
> project, not just OSM. And there are many areas that frustrating for
> the public.

You know this is actually a perfect example of why we need better
technical backbone. Things fall through cracks even in organisations
that are run by people who you are paying to care about you let alone
an organisation who is doing their best to support a community. OSM
hasn't had the resources or technical skills to get these technical
things in place (the fact that dev has been working on Labs for a long
time shows that even those with the skills are behind on what they
want to build). One of the things I'm personally working on (and will
hopefully start building a team once I get everything out of my head
and some basics sorted out) is a common identity across all of our
sites. This way we can start linking people and their contributions
(maybe an achievements page that pulls out useful stuff like how many
commits you've made (especially once labs gets up), how many forum
posts, blog posts or even comments on blog posts - perhaps a silly
idea, not sure, maybe someone will be interested in building it
eventually) as well as starting to provide more personalised services.
So in your case you submitted something to OSM and it appeared to go
into a black hole. Perhaps an email notification got lost in the
internet (happens to me all the time, I had one client where it was
almost impossible to send them email because their email hosting
provider had anti-spam rules so tight that it wasn't funny) or maybe
we shifted servers and we lost the data. Could be that it just got
completely dropped on the floor, without specifics I'm not sure I can
comment. We're not there yet at providing self service but did you
send an email to OSM asking "erm, what happened? I like submitted this
form ages ago and I haven't had any response!". I'm a great fan of
providing feedback on improving services or working out why something
didn't happen. Perhaps there is a good reason, perhaps there is a bad
reason (always sad but life) and perhaps we don't know what happened
(the dog at your email). I've personally asked OSM about name usage
(not sure why, maybe the dog at my email) and I got a response back
(again not immediately but I don't expect that either). Eventually
we'll eliminate the human responding to the email (and the equivalent
lag) so that it isn't as much of an annoyance.

The JED/JRD guys I know are working on getting a CRM style system up
to handle stuff as well which should be good. We're slowly working
towards being less annoying by providing more systems to provide self
service for the community so that if they didn't get their approval
for whatever reason (and thats a hard one because we can work out how
many we've approved, average approval times [maybe] but working out
where things are going wrong is something that is a hard metric to
measure because its like putting a person out the front of a building,
blind folding them, walking them through the building and then walking
them out the front and asking "What did you miss?". They don't know,
and I guess OSM is in the same bucket. Perhaps another great thread is
working out how to collect feedback better and work out what to do
with that, maybe something the Community WG can follow up or something
we can get the JED/JRD guys to think about (tracking community issues
and solving them, a bug tracker!).

Gosh this is long. Progress! (hopefully)

Cheers,

Sam

[Ron Severdia]

On Dec 3, 12:35 pm, Sam Moffatt <sam.moff...@joomla.org> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Ron Severdia <ron.sever...@joomla.org> wrote:
> > Nothing arrogant about it. I made a broad generalization that's true
> > in a broad sense. You can nitpick it to death by country by country to
> > "disprove" it but it's just that... nitpicking and going off-course
> > from the main point.
>
> I'm not interested in disproving it, I'm just curious about its
> validity. We've got examples of people around the world trying to
> prevent communities being created using the name due to trademark
> issues. I'm not sure I've seen any country that says "If you apply for
> a trademark and you've already got a US one we'll either a) give you a
> discount, b) ignore any other pending claims, c) just approve you if
> there aren't any claims, d) something else *easier* than if you didn't
> have a US mark". You say its easier and a broad generalisation that is
> true in a broad sense - I just fail to see how. Can you enlighten me?

Have you lost all common sense? What country in their right mind (or
even not-so-right mind) would actually say or do something like that?
Like I said, you can nitpick the point to death to avoid the primary
issue, but it doesn't change the fact that the "litigious era" of
Joomla should have come to a close already. That's not to say that all
pursuit of trademark violation cease, but that does mean a realignment
of the project focus.

> You're yet to prove your generalisation to be true or supported by
> anyone beyond yourself.

I don't *need* to prove it. I actually have experience in this area.
But if you disagree, then *you* need to disprove it by whatever you
think are facts. That will be hard to do since I made a generalization
and that only needs to be generally correct. But since neither of us
are lawyers, why go down that road?

> Trademark law is legal. Simple as that. You're saying its easier, I'm
> suggesting that it isn't binding anywhere but the United States of
> America. If something isn't binding else where I again fail to see how
> it is *easier*.

*Easier* and *binding* are two totally different things in this
context and you keep trying to make them synonyms. They will never be
so no sense in forcing a square peg in a round hole.

> >> From what I can tell the diagram was drafted by someone
> >> who wasn't at the summit and mistakes happen. The diagram had nowhere
> >> near as much proofing as the text and as you note the diagram provides
> >> a strong clarification than the text, so if anything we should have
> >> been proofing it even more than the text.
>
> > It's these kinds of statements that make me scratch my head. A summit
> > was organized, people gathered from miles around to discuss a
> > "renaissance" of the Joomla Project for the future.... but nobody can
> > be bothered with getting the communication of that message correct and
> > in a timely fashion. What does that say?
>
> It says that someone did up a diagram because they wanted to help out.
> Kudos for them for doing the diagram, unfortunately it wasn't quite
> accurate but not necessarily their fault. The message on the text was
> checked and rechecked, the diagram as noted wasn't. As you note an
> important part was missed, a mistake. What does that say? We make
> mistakes. Darn, we must be human! Should we do better in future? Sure,
> with your guidance I think people will put more importance on ensuring
> diagrams are correct.

It's not just the diagram, Sam. It's the text and the overall message
(or lack thereof). You can, again, get hyperfocused on one thing that
you think drives your point home, but you're missing the big picture.
A year was spent after the summit working out all the details and
putting together an announcement to the public. The information was
checked and rechecked but someone ended up being widely different than
the facts. That's a mind-boggling idea for me.

>
> Yah, sure. Still could have done better - problem I think in this case
> is a lack of time which hurt things more than anything. Usually does,
> which is unfortunate.
>

But "lack of time" is an excuse that only goes so far and can be used
a finite number of times. It's a serious commitment to be a part of
the leadership of a project the size of Joomla. Each and every one of
us needs to regularly take stock and ask the question "how many times
have I said I couldn't do something because of of lack time?" Now
follow that up with "how many times has it caused a serious problem
when I've said that?" If the answers to those questions are pretty
regular and relatively high numbers, then maybe a different role is
more suitable than a leadership role. This goes for everyone, myself
included.

> It is nice that people build their entire businesses on Joomla!, great
> to see something that I've put a lot of time and effort in is making
> people money. It isn't me but again, its nice for them.
>

Great, so you're experiencing something that sounds similar. But it
seems your job and interests are not directly related to Joomla, which
removes your "investment" in it. So if it's "nice for them," can we
take that level of responsibility with our communications and actions?
Can we respect that fact? Some may argue that these people are
"leeches" or whatever, but once those people contribute back, they can
no longer be considered such (justly or unjustly). Their investment in
Joomla is an order of magnitude higher than yours (and I think a few
others) so can you imagine how frustrating it must be to watch someone
be less attentive to detail or more carefree in their approach to
managing the project? This is not directed at you, but at everyone and
especially those who are less invested in the success and consider the
project a personal playground. That's not to say there isn't room for
some of that, but it should in no way influence the decision making
process.

> > It has sent the "wrong message" for six months and all of a sudden
> > it's time to remove it without any mention of such? Do you at all
> > understand the repercussion of such actions?
>
> I do understand it, but the point I'm trying to make is that it is a
> failure not only external communication but we've failed to
> communicate properly internally. Something has happened and it has
> been badly communicated. We've made a mistake (again, silly humans!)
> but we also put it back without working out first why the original
> decision was done. I'm pointing out both actions were examples of poor
> communication that we need to fix.

Absolutely agree. But mistakes of that type which impact the project's
PR need to be handled in a timely manner. Otherwise, you run the risk
of irreparable damage. You can only say "ooops we made a mistake" in
the same area so many times before you lose all credibility. Those are
backup "chits" for when you really need them, not a regular "Get out
of jail free" card whenever you feel like it. Six months isn't timely.
Neither is the few days (or whatever the exact time was) from the time
the original image was removed by Elin. The immediacy of the internet
is part of the culture now and it can't be ignored.

> >> As far
> >> as I can tell this has appeared some time in the last week or so with
> >> a page refresh. Not sure exactly when but according to Google Cache's
> >> Nov 27th version of the page it is completely different.
>
> > Yep, yet another mystery for the Hardy Boys to solve. :P
>
> Perhaps, not sure I get the Americanism (a presumption there?).

Yes, it was a snarky attempt at being humorous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy_Boys

> > I think there are a number of reasons for this, but trust is a big
> > issue. If the public doesn't trust OSM but the LT does, doesn't that
> > put the project in quite a pickle?
>
> Indeed it poses an interesting question for a new thread somewhere.
> What is the source of the schism? Not sure that embedding it into this
> already long thread is the most appropriate.

I think that's for a later discussion once the initial issues
presented here have been worked through. But just an idea to think
about in the interim.

> >> Some of these has been taking
> >> over events in which Ryan has done an admirable job. OSM picked up
> >> events at the request of the COC due to some people having issues with
> >> commitments and shifting away - we can also shift it back the other
> >> way, but eventually someone makes a decision and at the moment that is
> >> Ryan.
>
> > This is what my original post aims to get at. Is the shifting of
> > responsibilities from the project to OSM still serving the overall
> > project goals? What about other decisions reached at the summit?
>
> Indeed, we've deviated off topic and I'd like to see individual
> examples of things and flesh out what has and hasn't worked. Again
> since we've wandered. Perhaps start a new thread per grievance and we
> can then flesh them out and discuss solutions to problems.

My first goal was to determine if the "plan" was on course after such
a length of time and whether or not the influx of project stakeholders
thought it was still a valid approach. I am questioning the plan and
the decisions of the people who participated in the forming of it
whether or not they see it as successful, on track, behind schedule,
fraught with problems, or whatever the individual observations/
concerns are. This is not a grievance-based discussion (that's not to
say one might not be started separately).

> >> At the end of the
> >> day we've been unable to both co-ordinate people effectively mostly
> >> due to the immense amount of time it takes.
>
> > Not true. Yes, it takes time. But the inability to coordinate people
> > towards a given task/goal or get them to contribute is not a black
> > box. The goal of attracting contributors has been a primary issues
> > since I became involved in the project a few years ago and it has only
> > deteriorated since. That means the actions of the project and OSM are
> > not working and a new approach is needed.
>
> Fortunately correlation isn't causality :)

It *can* be but isn't *necessarily* so. I'd argue it is and it isn't
when it comes to contributors.

>
> >> So we asked OSM to trial something, how would we pay the core
> >> developers to not only write code but facilitate community
> >> development, to help improve the quality of code submissions and
> >> ensure the development of the general community.
>
> > Who is the "we" in this statement? The COC? It wasn't the LT.
>
> Yes, the COC. Apologies for confusion again.

Thanks for the clarification. But this again gives the impression that
the COC is "tasking" OSM with specific activities. Can you elaborate
on that relationship/process?

>
> Well that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it just as I've
> statement mine. Perhaps I'm overusing superlative language towards
> them because I'm excited about some of the stuff I've been coming out
> of them.

Fair enough. But, to be clear, I wouldn't have used that phrase to
describe anyone involved....even myself. :)

> I can't speak for them personally but I believe they were getting to
> the point of making a hard decision to not be able to do that because
> it wasn't sustainable for them to donate so much time for nothing. As
> both are effectively consultants, they don't have a regular day job to
> support them as a more ensured thing so they've got a hard balancing
> effort. We've gotten to this point mostly on the back of people who
> have been supported. Toowoomba Regional Council had the flexibility to
> support Andrew in his work and I think might have even contributed
> towards him and 1.6 as well. I'd suggest that if anything TRC has
> provided more for the history of this Project than has ever really
> been recognised. Andrew also did a fundraising run himself which must
> have been an incredible swallow for his pride and I have immense
> respect that he was willing and able to do that. Perhaps Louis can
> speak up to say if there are reasons why he'd like to get paid for his
> contributions and how that would be more sustainable. I'd like to get
> paid too and it'd mean I'd spend less time on my day job and more time
> on Joomla. The approach and the handling of it was perhaps done
> awkwardly, so lets push it out into a new thread and discuss what we
> did wrong so its clear for everyone, discuss what we could have
> changed and work on some strategies for improving so we don't make
> this mistake next time.

That's all great and they both know I think highly of them and their
work. Personally, I don't need any reasons from either of them beyond
needing a paycheck. We all have that need (well, those of us that
aren't independently wealthy with millions). But the main concern is
how irresponsibly the process was handled and the way it was presented
to the public. Maybe a fear of backlash was the reason it was done
that way. If that's the case, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. If
that wasn't the case, it was just done poorly ("awkwardly" is a very
gentle way to put it).

But this is one in a string of PR botches in recent times. I heard
someone mention something about hiring a PR firm but have no other
information than that. If that's something that's underway, it might
be a good thing to remove PR & marketing away from OSM since, in my
opinion, that is something that clearly isn't working (or rather is
causing damage).

> They did become the catch all, aimed at more towards the more legal or
> fiscal focused things. I agree that a lot of stuff should land in
> either production or community and some stuff ended up in OSM because
> at the time nobody was available to pick it up. Perhaps some of it
> needs to move around, I can see this thread is where you aimed to put
> that discussion but we've diverged heavily from that point so yeah,
> new thread perhaps?

The reasoning that "nobody was available to pick it up" invariably
leads to any random "Joe" suddenly forced to be an expert in something
they may have never done in their life. Is that really the best
approach to accomplishing our goals or being successful? In fact, so
many problems have befallen the project in its early years that we
should be overcompensating in the other direction in order to promote
more public good will. To do that, we need to have people with
experience and skill in as many areas as possible. I feel we don't
have that now and I don't see any stumbling blocks to achieving that
other than a LT consensus it needs to be fixed and move forward with a
plan.

Starting another thread with specific tasks that OSM shouldn't be
responsible for is fine, but I first wanted to check in with the
entire team on whether or not the high-level decisions/direction
decided on at the summit were still valid.

> No I don't, which is why I've quantified it. From what I've seen of
> your work within the project you're a designer (UI issues, icons,
> templates [like j.org but also bluestork admin in 1.6]) which is again
> why I didn't see it as a problem that you weren't listed on a dev
> event. I'm just commenting on my perspective of what has happened more
> than anything.

If that was all you knew about me, wouldn't that be enough? Don't all
devs need UI or design help? :P

> I've suggested a few different threads throughout such as a more on
> topic project structure thread addressing parts of the structure that
> are wrong, issues with our communication and how we can improve there,
> issues with OSM's relationship to the community. I don't think making
> it a Ron & Elin thing is where I was heading, I'm puzzled again about
> the introduction of another name here but sure. If we've got issues,
> lets get some threads created and start working through them. Perhaps
> if we've got enough new blood we need to do another summit somewhere
> and definitely get people not only a) face to face but b) on top of
> everything and rehash the structure where things aren't working. Bite
> sized chunks are always handy because it is easier to handle smaller
> items than large  I'm not entirely sure, perhaps there is another
> thread! Should we have a summit? Perhaps, not entirely sure.
> Scheduling these things is always fun but if you think its worth it
> lets get started on it.

Again, I was posing the issue from a high-level point. If everyone
jumped in here and unanimously said "Yes, we're all on board with the
plan even though it's been so long," (or the contrary), the next step
would be specific about things that concern me and concern others.
Others have shared concerns with me in private, but I can only speak
for myself. If that forum is this group, that's fine. Face to face is
always better and I'm sure some of that will happen this weekend. But
a formal summit with as many stakeholders as possible present is
ideal.

> I personally wouldn't put the failure of Comms at the feet of OSM when
> it really fell apart due to lack of direction after Louis left (its
> not Louis fault either). That is unfortunate but I wouldn't put it at
> OSM's feet because the failure of Comms wasn't because of OSM and it
> wasn't even their responsibility either. If OSM is taking heat for
> that then this is really something I feel is completely unfair and
> undeserved.

Since you weren't involved, I'll fill you on the short version. When
Louis led the team, things went well. We had a voice on the CT and a
conduit for critical information in order to do our jobs. When Louis
left and others replaced him, we never had even a remotely comparable
level of communication and information flow. OSM was dictating how we
should write things and even ignored the team altogether in posting
front page announcements and other activities. We were repeatedly
blindsided with new and conflicting information and could no longer
have a unified message coming out of the project. People would come
back to us and ask what was going on. All we knew is that our job was
being done for us by OSM (and poorly) and we had to live with it.
Nobody was willing to put OSM in their place (or had tried and failed)
and the whole team resigned. Having lived through that experience
firsthand, I feel very confident about about laying a certain amount
on the Core Team at the time (it shouldn't have mattered who on the CT
was our team head, but evidently it did) and the rest squarely on OSM.
I have supporting evidence up the wazoo and would share it but it
doesn't really serve any real purpose. The bottom line is that a well-
functioning team was undermined by OSM, causing its ultimate failure.

> > There's nothing *good* about any of these experiences for a member of
> > the public. I personally submitted three domains for approval over a
> > year ago and haven't heard a word since. I'm far from being alone.
> > There are countless stories of upset people in this area. But this is
> > an example of what I mean by getting "back to basics." This is OSM's
> > *job* and it's been bungled for years. But now OSM is supposed to
> > extend it's reach into other areas? Why don't they get the basics down
> > first before branching out? That question applies to all areas of the
> > project, not just OSM. And there are many areas that frustrating for
> > the public.
>
> You know this is actually a perfect example of why we need better
> technical backbone. Things fall through cracks even in organisations
> that are run by people who you are paying to care about you let alone
> an organisation who is doing their best to support a community. OSM
> hasn't had the resources or technical skills to get these technical
> things in place

But it hasn't been made a priority either. The OSM site is in a
constant state of disarray with broken images, links, etc. I could
form a team of willing volunteers within a week that could tackle a
total overhaul of the OSM site and build what was needed. But OSM
wouldn't allow that (or would it?) because that would be relinquishing
a great deal of control.

> One of the things I'm personally working on (and will
> hopefully start building a team once I get everything out of my head
> and some basics sorted out) is a common identity across all of our
> sites. This way we can start linking people and their contributions
> (maybe an achievements page that pulls out useful stuff like how many
> commits you've made (especially once labs gets up), how many forum
> posts, blog posts or even comments on blog posts - perhaps a silly
> idea, not sure, maybe someone will be interested in building it
> eventually) as well as starting to provide more personalised services.

Like the original proposal for the community from years ago? That'd be
a great thing to finally get set up. In fact, I'd probably argue that
paying people to build that is more value than paying people to write
stuff for 1.6 (no offense, Louis & Andrew :) ). So is this a community
project? Since you seem to be short on time, why don't you pass your
idea off to the CWG and see if they can make it happen?

> So in your case you submitted something to OSM and it appeared to go
> into a black hole.

So why not a system, like the Showcase or JED, where applicants can
log in and see the status of their submissions?

> We're not there yet at providing self service but did you
> send an email to OSM asking "erm, what happened? I like submitted this
> form ages ago and I haven't had any response!".

Had it been one domain, I might have asked. When it's three, combined
with a plethora of stories from other applicants and a tempestuous
relationship with OSM, I don't need to send an email to check on it.
Maybe that's a false assumption on my part, but I don't think so.

> I've personally asked OSM about name usage
> (not sure why, maybe the dog at my email) and I got a response back
> (again not immediately but I don't expect that either). Eventually
> we'll eliminate the human responding to the email (and the equivalent
> lag) so that it isn't as much of an annoyance.

Keep in mind that you asking something of OSM is different that a
person in the public asking something. Experiences vary greatly so
just because the system works great for you doesn't mean that's the
case with others.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Chris Davenport]

Ron, this thread has grown so long that I'm struggling to find any description of the changes you are proposing.  Can you summarise them for me please?

Thanks,
Chris.

2009/12/3 Ron Severdia <ron.se...@joomla.org>

[Brad Baker]

> > I personally submitted three domains for approval over a 

> > year ago and haven't heard a word since. 

I've looked into this for you. (See like you, I do also listen :P ) 

Two of your domains were approved, and the logs reflect emails to that effect being sent to you. I am not sure why you never bothered to ask anyone from OSM about it, seeing as we all work together on things day to day and you have all their contact details. A third domain application is listed, but according to the software used to mange things, this application was removed.. not sure if it was you, who or why.

OSM can even supply a screenshot of these email logs to you if you ask them. I have seen the dates of application as well as dates these were approved and emails were sent out to you.

Does that information help to reduce your concern about this aspect of OSM's role in your affairs?

-----

Brad Baker

Twitter @xyzulu
The Joomla Community: community.joomla.org

[Ron Severdia]

Hi Chris,

Yes that's outlined in my very first post that started the thread.

[Ron Severdia]

On Dec 3, 5:28 pm, Brad Baker <brad.ba...@community.joomla.org> wrote:
> > > I personally submitted three domains for approval over a
> > > year ago and haven't heard a word since.
>
> I've looked into this for you. (See like you, I do also listen :P )

As I told you in private, I'll say so in public that I didn't want
anyone to give me special treatment. If the process *worked*, special
treatment like you looking into it wouldn't be needed.

> Two of your domains were approved, and the logs reflect emails to that
> effect being sent to you.

For some reason I never got those. I'd be willing to chalk it up to
being a fluke, but there are way too many people with that same
problem for it to be a fluke. So the notification system is clearly
not working. That's not news though because this exact possibility has
been discussed before and no action has been taken towards a remedy.

> I am not sure why you never bothered to ask anyone
> from OSM about it, seeing as we all work together on things day to day and
> you have all their contact details.

Maybe *you* work day to day with OSM but I certainly don't. I
explained why I didn't contact OSM in my previous response to Sam
above.

> A third domain application is listed,
> but according to the software used to mange things, this application was
> removed.. not sure if it was you, who or why.

It certainly wasn't me and I have no idea even *how* an applicant can
do that. Seems like yet another flaw in the system.

> Does that information help to reduce your concern about this aspect of OSM's
> role in your affairs?

No, you just stuck your thumb in the dike. This is symptomatic of the
larger concern. I could make a long list of things like this and you
can go through and remedy each one to my "satisfaction" but that
doesn't fix what I would call the broken system (not just the domain
approval process). Fixing the problem instead of the symptom will save
time, headaches and goodwill better than applying bandaids where
needed.

To loop back to my original post, doesn't the fact we're even
discussing this or you had to take the time to look into this mean
that "things are falling through the cracks"?

[Brad Baker]

Your last application for domain usage was in Dec 2008, about 12 months ago. I know the process is not perfect, but I assure you things have improved a lot since then. (see the 3rd paragraphs below) How can you be so certain the process is still failing as miserably as you imply? What is wrong with taking the initiative in this area and contacting OSM? (Don't you have to keep contacting your cable company as they often 'make mistakes'/fail to follow up on things/send you defective hardware etc?)

Why do you still blame OSM for not approving your domains when I just confirmed the above to you? Do you think the personal issues you and one person from OSM have are that great that I have been fooled and the logs somehow manipulated? Things may have been, in this area, falling through the cracks, but to me at this time I disagree with your evaluation of the process. 

2 days ago, someone (a community member who is not on any of our WG's) contacted me in private and asked if I could follow up on his domain usage application which he had just submitted. When I did a few hours later it was already approved. To me that is a gauge that the system is at least working to a degree at this time, despite your evaluations of it based on your experiences 1 year ago. 

These are facts Ron, and yet you still feel you are right in disputing them. I don't know where in your mind this approach ends...

I believe there are many issues raised to discuss, but I do not believe the entire system has failed as miserably as you imply. (maybe I am reading the first post of yours incorrectly) When you remove the fluff and personal issues and want to focus on the issues one by one I think the results will be more satisfying to you. At the moment, this is a thread about you getting things off your chest and others not seeing the same reality as you, if I take a step back and look at it. 

The more to lay into the organisation that you are also a part of (the Joomla Project) the more your foot that keeps kicking your leg is going to hurt.. and the leg will start to hurt as well.

I wonder if replying to this thread in the first place was a good idea from me or not. I feel ok, but you seem just as upset and angry and not willing to concede that perhaps not all your perceptions reflect the reality. Give me something to show you want to work together with the team you are on? We're just going around in circles aren't we? I will evaluate my involvement as a result, as I am not yet certain we're headed for any further constructive discussion in this thread.

You KNOW people are listening, and yet you are still beating the same drum as vigorously as before. I am not sure what you want, despite your efforts to explain.

For example, you still have not broken down your issues into separate threads with not just the problems, but your proposals for solutions. Until then, I hope at the least your "venting" makes YOU feel better, I don't think it's necessarily making others feel better however.

I think too, that people are treating you nicer in this thread than you are treating those who are your intended target of your thread (OSM/Rest of the Leadership Team). You're fortunate our project at this time is filled with so many professional people who can treat each other with respect. You would be shocked to see how things were in the past, back in the old days when even less than was is done now was in the public eye. 

Sorry if some words/phrases don't some out right...

[Ron Severdia]

On Dec 3, 6:51 pm, Brad Baker <brad.ba...@community.joomla.org> wrote:
> Your last application for domain usage was in Dec 2008, about 12 months ago.
> I know the process is not perfect, but I assure you things have improved a
> lot since then. (see the 3rd paragraphs below) How can you be so certain the
> process is still failing as miserably as you imply?

Merely by *listening* to the public complaints about the process. As
I've said, my experience is one of many and if it can happen to a
member of the LT (Louis mentioned he had a domain as well in queue he
never got approval for), then it can happen to anyone. And it does.
Once is too often, but excusable. The many times it's happened and the
large number of public complaints make it a "failure."

> What is wrong with
> taking the initiative in this area and contacting OSM? (Don't you have to
> keep contacting your cable company as they often 'make mistakes'/fail to
> follow up on things/send you defective hardware etc?)

I've already explained that in my previous response. Also, I knew that
my domain requests were for projects that bring the Joomla Project
money and put the project in a positive light. So at some point, I
just took the sad tact of saying to myself that if OSM wants to
challenge or sue me over those things, we'll cross that bridge when we
come to it.

> Why do you still blame OSM for not approving your domains when I just
> confirmed the above to you?

You are not OSM. You "fixed" the problem for them. Do you recognize
that as a band-aid on the situation?

> Do you think the personal issues you and one
> person from OSM have are that great that I have been fooled and the logs
> somehow manipulated? Things may have been, in this area, falling through the
> cracks, but to me at this time I disagree with your evaluation of the
> process.

I sincerely doubt anyone would go that far and I don't need to go down
that road to paranoia because it's silly. If the logs say that and
they look genuine to you, I'll accept that. But that's not the issue
here. The issue is that this is a system that has failed. Despite many
public complaints there hasn't been any public acknowledgement of
technical failures, a mea culpa on the backlog, nor an impetus to fix
it. It's clearly a sore spot with many people (I just resolved myself
to what I described above) so why would a casual attitude be taken
towards something that clearly makes people upset?

That being said, I don't want to get too hyperfocused on this one
aspect of OSM that isn't working out. There are a number of things
like this. The goal wasn't to examine each symptom in detail and fix
it to my satisfaction. It's to fix the bigger issues.

> 2 days ago, someone (a community member who is not on any of our WG's)
> contacted me in private and asked if I could follow up on his domain usage
> application which he had just submitted. When I did a few hours later it was
> already approved. To me that is a gauge that the system is at least working
> to a degree at this time, despite your evaluations of it based on your
> experiences 1 year ago.

I believe I know who that was and and this person only got in contact
with you because he complained in the forums first and you *told* him
to contact you.

That's a good and bad story. Good in that it *appears* to have been
approved in a timely fashion (though you don't mention how much time
had passed before the person approached you to look into it). The bad
is that, again, the system failed to notify that individual.
Considering the poor image of OSM in the public eye, can you fathom
why a person wouldn't approach OSM to get a status update?

> These are facts Ron, and yet you still feel you are right in disputing them.
> I don't know where in your mind this approach ends...

I'm not disputing the facts. I'm disputing your extrapolations of
them. You're saying that because the domain was approved in the system
there's nothing for the applicant to complain or be concerned about.
That's disrespectful to the people who took the time to follow the
process by filling out a formal request. OSM at least *owes* those
people a response to their request. You can't blame an overwhelming
number of "lost" emails on the applicants.

Additionally, I know exactly what system is being used for this and we
all know it isn't the most reliable piece of software. I've used it
personally. You should take that into serious consideration as well
when you're throwing "facts" around.

> When you remove the fluff and personal
> issues and want to focus on the issues one by one I think the results will
> be more satisfying to you. At the moment, this is a thread about you getting
> things off your chest and others not seeing the same reality as you, if I
> take a step back and look at it.

But you've failed to address the overall issue from my first post. You
have devolved this conversation into a personal issue despite my many
explanations and proof to the contrary. But I guess by doing that
you've indirectly expressed you're opinion on the matter.

> The more to lay into the organisation that you are also a part of (the
> Joomla Project) the more your foot that keeps kicking your leg is going to
> hurt.. and the leg will start to hurt as well.

If I didn't think there were issues to discuss or a way to fix/improve
things, I'd just walk away. It's a desire to make things better that
is driving this for me. Do you have the same desire?

> I wonder if replying to this thread in the first place was a good idea from
> me or not. I feel ok, but you seem just as upset and angry and not willing

> to concede that perhaps not *all* your perceptions reflect the reality.

That's totally up to you. I'm not upset or angry... yet. :)

But let's say, hypothetically, that just *some* of my observations are
99% correct. Does that change your perspective at all on the matter?

> Give
> me something to show you want to work together with the team you are on?
> We're just going around in circles aren't we? I will evaluate my involvement
> as a result, as I am not yet certain we're headed for any further
> constructive discussion in this thread.

Do you really need something? Isn't the fact this dialogue is
happening any kind of display that I care about the project and its
success? Isn't my presence and the almost daily contributions to the
project a sign as well? How can you even find any legitimate reason to
go down that road?

>
> You KNOW people are listening, and yet you are still beating the same drum
> as vigorously as before. I am not sure what you want, despite your efforts
> to explain.
> For example, you still have not broken down your issues into separate
> threads with not just the problems, but your proposals for solutions. Until
> then, I hope at the least your "venting" makes YOU feel better, I don't
> think it's necessarily making others feel better however.

OK, so apparently my first post is too much to get a handle on or too
vague for some. I'll rephrase in the form of shorter questions and
hopefully a clearer order:

1) Public and private discussions of the results of the summit from 18
months ago are unclear and changing when the wind blows. Why are the
teams are not in agreement on the details?

2) Since a sizable portion of the people present at that summit are no
longer with the project, is there any interest in considering the
opinions or input of the newer people?

3) If there isn't a consensus on the results, how can a consensus be
reached by the current teams?

4) If that consensus includes a large number of project
responsibilities moving to OSM, is that the right direction for the
project?

If you re-read my original post, all these things are there--just not
explicitly expressed in the form of questions. Do you see how each
subsequent question leads the discussion down a specific path? I
wanted to let people on the team drive the discussion in whatever
direction the team dynamic took it instead of taking control of it.
Maybe I should have done that instead but I didn't want to "lead the
witness." If you feel I should start a new thread with these, let me
know.

So this isn't about venting, it's about taking stock and a collective
understanding of a specific path forward. Discussions have diverted in
various directions, but hopefully the above questions give future
responses better focus.

> I think too, that people are treating you nicer in this thread than you are
> treating those who are your intended target of your thread (OSM/Rest of the
> Leadership Team). You're fortunate our project at this time is filled with
> so many professional people who can treat each other with respect. You would
> be shocked to see how things were in the past, back in the old days when
> even less than was is done now was in the public eye.

I have been very respectful in this thread and have been very
professional in my responses. You know full well that it would be easy
for me (or anyone here) to do some serious mudslinging. What would it
accomplish? This thread wasn't just about calling out OSM for not
fulfilling it's basic responsibilities. OSM was a small number of the
people at that summit. This is about achieving a plan forward that's
different than what's been going on in the time period since. First, I
want to know if there's a consensus on it and then, if there is, if
that's really a sound plan. If it is, it will stand alone on it's own
without all this wishy-washy image removing and clandestine activity.

[Brad Baker]

1) Public and private discussions of the results of the summit from 18
months ago are unclear and changing when the wind blows. Why are the
teams are not in agreement on the details?

 

Things and people as well as structure has already changed since that summit why not focus on what you propose we work towards? I am sure someone already said that above though...

 

2) Since a sizable portion of the people present at that summit are no
longer with the project, is there any interest in considering the
opinions or input of the newer people?

I know I am interested in hearing them. 

 

3) If there isn't a consensus on the results, how can a consensus be
reached by the current teams?

 

Results of what? Consensus on what? How does the Production WG currently come to consensus on issues? 

 

4) If that consensus includes a large number of project
responsibilities moving to OSM, is that the right direction for the
project?

You've shared your feelings toward OSM, I've shared mine, let's see what others have to say.

This thread is huge, I still suggest you split off these points you want to discuss into separate threads. Many people are loath to jump into threads with this much emotion in.

 

[Ron Severdia]

The delay in responding has been because of the developer conference
in NY, illness, and general holiday happenings.

I think that when the first topic of a post is too broad, the
discussion can easily become unfocused. Once that happens, we get epic
posts and responses that just become increasingly difficult to follow
and discuss in any productive manner. With that in mind, I'd like to
hit the reset button on the Project Direction discussion and see if we
can make better progress by discussing individual points.

I've started a new thread here (and will start others as we progress)
so we can have more specific discussions:

http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-leadership/t/1718952ee5088362