next steps about proposed leadership structure changes

[Paul Orwig]

Hi all,

In the proposed leadership structure changes blog that was published on September 29, it was mentioned that the public JPeople discussion would remain open at least until October 27, but after that date the process may move forward. Now that we are past October 27, I wanted to start a discussion on this public list for us to discuss next steps.

The blog summarized two different aspects of what we discussed in San Jose: The proposed changes, and the proposed composition of the transition team along with the work they will undertake. I think it makes sense for us to break up our discussion here into two parts that match up with those two different aspects summarized in the blog:

Part 1: First, let's discuss and decide if we still want to move forward with the changes that we agreed upon in San Jose as proposed in the blog, or do we want to adopt one of the alternate proposals that came out of the JPeople discussion, or do we want to not make any changes.

Part 2: After we decide on a new general structure (either the new structure proposed in the blog or one of the alternate proposals), then let's discuss and decide about the composition of the transition team and the work they will undertake. We can consider and discuss feedback from the JPeople discussion about the transition team and their work in this step.

If there aren't any objections to following this approach for our discussion, for Part 1, here is my summarized recollection of the different leadership structure ideas that were mentioned in the JPeople discussion:

1. Move forward with the proposed leadership structure changes as summarized in the blog.
2. Move forward with the proposed leadership structure changes as summarized in the blog, but add an advisory group composed of members from the international community that will help the project be more aware of and responsive to the needs of the international community.
3. Keep current PLT/CLT/OSM teams unchanged, but broaden CoC's oversight to cover all three current teams.
4. After major project-wide goals have been defined, go out and recruit industry experts/visionary leaders in the fields that match our major goals, and invite them to join project leadership.
5. Make no leadership structure changes, but instead define more specifics about roles, responsibilities, processes, and expectations for current leadership teams and working groups.

If others see other different leadership structure ideas (not transition team composition or their  responsibilities) from the JPeople discussion that I missed, please feel free to add them. If anyone has questions or comments about any of these ideas, let's discuss them and then let's decide on a path forward!

Thanks,

paul

[Brad Baker]

Personally, in response to Part 1:

I am happy to move forward with changes that the majority of the Leadership Teams support. As I posted in the JPeople discussion however, I don't see our "problems" being addressed as much as people imagine they will be with these kinds of structural changes. Still, I am happy to support the majority.

Looking back over my time associated with this project I still see the same issues repeating, namely, to name a few: People/groups failing to follow through on things, poor behaviour towards others, acceptance of poor behaviour to community members, difficulty finding (and keeping) professionally behaved people to join our Leadership Teams .. as well as other issues of course. I don't personally believe that these issues will change with a major or minor structural change, and what I consider to me important issues may not be important issues to others.

(Just providing some input from my own point of view to back up and explain my initial statement above).

Personal comments on point 2: I do think it's vitally important that we take into account the needs of the international communities, and I do know that some progress is already being made in that areas, so that's good.

Once everyone provides their feedback, a discussion on your Part 2 above would be the next natural step I'd think.

(I'll keep my comments to this post unless someone directly requests I respond to allow others to provide their input.)

[Paul Orwig]

Thanks Brad for sharing your thoughts.

Since this thread has been open for over a week, I propose the following in order to try and keep this moving forward:

Let's set aside one more week for this "Part 1" discussion (what option should be chosen for leadership structure changes). If after one more week, if a majority of leadership hasn't spoken up to the contrary, then let's accept Option 1 below and then let's move on to "Part 2" of the discussion (composition of the transition team and the work they will undertake).

The rationale for proposing this approach is because Option 1 was supported by all but two leaders (of those who were in attendance) at the conclusion of the joint summit, and Option 1 is also what was reviewed by all leaders without any objections before the blog was posted on September 29.

Here again here is my summarized recollection of the different options that were mentioned in the JPeople discussion about what was written in the blog:

1. Move forward with the proposed leadership structure changes as summarized in the blog.
2. Move forward with the proposed leadership structure changes as summarized in the blog, but add an advisory group composed of members from the international community that will help the project be more aware of and responsive to the needs of the international community.
3. Keep current PLT/CLT/OSM teams unchanged, but broaden CoC's oversight to cover all three current teams.
4. After major project-wide goals have been defined, go out and recruit industry experts/visionary leaders in the fields that match our major goals, and invite them to join project leadership.

5. Make no leadership structure changes, but instead define more specifics about roles, responsibilities, processes, and expectations for current leadership teams and working groups.are the five options I summarized that cam

Thanks,

paul

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla Leadership" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-leadership/-/d0ceg7Cst-0J.
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.

[Paul Orwig]

In the OSM board meeting yesterday, it was suggested to keep this "Part 1" thread open for more time and to ask again for more discussion.

For "Part 1" of this discussion, please share your thoughts about if you still think we should move forward with the changes that we agreed upon in San Jose as proposed in the blog, or do we want to adopt one of the alternate proposals that came out of the JPeople discussion, or do we want to not make any changes.

My thought is that we should move forward with the proposed leadership structure changes that we agreed to in San Jose and that were later summarized in the proposed leadership structure changes blog. I think a new structure that adds oversight and accountability will improve communication, collaboration, community engagement and productivity, and will help to reduce overall drama. A new structure gives our project a stronger foundation that will enable contributors to be more effective in our current mission to "provide a flexible platform for digital publishing and collaboration".

Here again here is my summarized recollection of the different options that were mentioned in the JPeople discussion about what was written in the blog:

1. Move forward with the proposed leadership structure changes as summarized in the blog.
2. Move forward with the proposed leadership structure changes as summarized in the blog, but add an advisory group composed of members from the international community that will help the project be more aware of and responsive to the needs of the international community.
3. Keep current PLT/CLT/OSM teams unchanged, but broaden CoC's oversight to cover all three current teams.
4. After major project-wide goals have been defined, go out and recruit industry experts/visionary leaders in the fields that match our major goals, and invite them to join project leadership.

5. Make no leadership structure changes, but instead define more specifics about roles, responsibilities, processes, and expectations for current leadership teams and working groups.

Thanks,

paul

[Robert Deutz]

Hi All.

We should move forward with that we are agreed on in San Jose.

We should defindly have the ideas in mind we got at the JPeople
discussion.

Cheers,
Robert

On 16 Nov., 16:50, Paul Orwig <paul.or...@community.joomla.org> wrote:
> In the OSM board meeting yesterday, it was suggested to keep this "Part 1"
> thread open for more time and to ask again for more discussion.
>
> For "Part 1" of this discussion, please share your thoughts about if you
> still think we should move forward with the changes that we agreed upon in
> San Jose as proposed in the blog, or do we want to adopt one of the
> alternate proposals that came out of the JPeople discussion, or do we want
> to not make any changes.
>
> My thought is that we should move forward with the proposed leadership
> structure changes that we agreed to in San Jose and that were later
> summarized in the proposed leadership structure changes

> blog<http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/1503-proposed-leadership...>.

> I think a new structure that adds oversight and accountability will improve
> communication, collaboration, community engagement and productivity, and
> will help to reduce overall drama. A new structure gives our project a
> stronger foundation that will enable contributors to be more effective in
> our current mission to "provide a flexible platform for digital publishing
> and collaboration".
>
> Here again here is my summarized recollection of the different options that
> were mentioned in the JPeople discussion about what was written in the

> blog<http://people.joomla.org/groups/viewdiscussion/1344-proposed-leadersh...>

> :
>
> 1. Move forward with the proposed leadership structure changes as
> summarized in the blog.
> 2. Move forward with the proposed leadership structure changes as
> summarized in the blog, but add an advisory group composed of members from
> the international community that will help the project be more aware of and
> responsive to the needs of the international community.
> 3. Keep current PLT/CLT/OSM teams unchanged, but broaden CoC's oversight to
> cover all three current teams.
> 4. After major project-wide goals have been defined, go out and recruit
> industry experts/visionary leaders in the fields that match our major
> goals, and invite them to join project leadership.
> 5. Make no leadership structure changes, but instead define more specifics
> about roles, responsibilities, processes, and expectations for current
> leadership teams and working groups.
>
> Thanks,
>
> paul
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Paul Orwig

> <paul.or...@community.joomla.org>wrote:

[Ryan W. Ozimek]

Hi Paul,

Unfortunately, I have an answer that doesn't seem to be listed in #1-5
below. Mind if I hack the system...slightly.

Considering the substantial feedback from the community, I think there is
quite a bit to digest. I'd recommend that we regroup as a leadership team,
have our three leaders on this topic from the summit (Paul, Chris, and
Wendy) lead an effort to create a new draft of the leadership restructure
recommendation, and then present this updated draft to the community.

It's been many weeks since the summit, and there's been little to no
feedback from the leadership members other than those in the J!People
discussion. I don't believe we would do the community justice by making a
decision towards #1 or #2 without further discussion among the leadership
team. Additionally, I feel that based on my years within the leadership
team, it is time to evolve to meet the needs of today's challenges and
opportunities, so #3, #4, and #5 don't seem to fit well for me either.

So, to clarify, my #6 would be as follows:

"6. Regroup as a Leadership Team, lead by our three leaders on this topic
from the Summit, and create a new draft of the leadership restructure.
Then, present this new draft to the community for another round of feedback.
Then, incorporate feedback where the leadership team sees fit, and make a
final go/no-go decision."

My $.02.

Cheers,
Ryan

----------------------------------------
Ryan Ozimek
President
Open Source Matters (Joomla's non-profit organization)
Email: ryan....@opensourcematters.org
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/cozimek

[Dianne Henning]

Hi Paul,

I feel that #2 is the best way forward, based mostly on the
discussions and overall consensus from the summit. I think the
international community must absolutely be included as part of the
restructure.

Thank you for the time and energy you have put into pushing this idea
forward. It has been very well presented.
Dianne

On Nov 28, 4:32 pm, "Ryan W. Ozimek"

> Email: ryan.ozi...@opensourcematters.org
> Twitter:http://www.twitter.com/cozimek