We've made a decision to have a joint summit after JAB, and that the
primary topic will be a follow-up and vote on the leadership structure
changes that were proposed following our previous joint summit last July
in San Jose<http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/1503-proposed-leadership...>
We've gotten support in this thread (along with no objections) to the idea
of forming a working group that would put more research and thought into
the details for how any recommended changes might best be implemented. The
output from that working group can be the starting point for further
discussion in our joint summit meetings.
We've now got a little over two months until JAB, and there's a lot of work
for this working group to do, so I think we should get started. I think an
ideal working group would include at least one volunteer from PLT, CLT, and
OSM, and I think it would be helpful if some members of the community were
also invited to join. A lot of community members shared a lot of ideas in
the JPeople discussion following the proposed leadership structure changes
and I think it would be great to invite some of those people to join this
working group. I also think it would be great if the working group invited
input and feedback from the community as a whole as well for some aspects
of their work.
Are there any objections to following this approach, or any other
suggestions or ideas about it? I would be happy to write a blog to share
this with the community to help get this started.
Here are some of the things I think this working group might put more
research and thought into, with a goal of coming up with some
recommendations in advance of our joint summit immediately following JAB:
- Details for new board, including:
- What would a good name for the new board be?
- How might OSM by-laws need to be changed (or new by-laws written)
to accomodate all recommended changes?
- What would the responsibilities for the new board consist of?
- How would the initial new board be formed?
- How would new board members be chosen?
- What would terms a/o term limits be for board members?
- How would board members potentially be removed?
- Details for new committee structure, including:
- What would be a good number of committees?
- What would the responsibilities of each of the new committees
- Which committees would current leaders and working groups be
- How would the committees and board best stay in contact and work
- What are some project-wide best practices that could potentially
adopted, such as:
- Openness and transparency
- Setting goals and priorities
- Terms and term limits for team managers
- Finding multiple volunteers to have backups for key team roles
- Documentation of key team roles
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Robert Deutz <rde...
> I vote for #1
> On 19 Feb., 17:05, Ron Severdia <ron.sever...@joomla.org> wrote:
> > I vote for #1. That will put a stake in the ground for whether or not
> > proposal will move forward.
> > Also sounds like a good idea to form an impartial working group to gather
> > information leading up to JAB.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla Leadership" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at