Mike, thank you for sharing and discussing this here!
I think we have to look at the fundamental differences of open source projects:
- Projects like Linux, Kubernetes etc. develop universal tools. In contrast FOLIO will be a library solution. Code will
come from payed staff of information business players (our stakeholders) and I do not expect code contributions from independent volunteers.
- The mentioned tools are technical tools where the demands and the code come from the same people. New features are simply
driven by code contributions. FOLIO needs a requirements management driven by functional experts – and this requirements management is excellent in FOLIO now.
I also see the advantage of the clear and transparent rules of the recommendation and the proposed governance structure
should be nice for a project developing a technical tool like Linux or Kubernetes. But I feel that a business specific solution needs a governance that reflects more this different kind of community and the different way of contribution: We probably need more
predictable mechanisms for the balance of resource investment and requirements management/steering participation for institutions/companies.
Marko
From: tech-council@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <tech-council@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org>
On Behalf Of Mike Gorrell
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 7:29 PM
To: tech-council@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: Re: Please Review: Jono Bacon's recommendations
BTW - it’s the Community Leadership Committee/Council… not Steering :-)
Stakeholder Taskforce is me, Harry Kaplanian, Ginny Boyer, Jesse Koenecke, Christopher Spalding, Kirstin Kemner-Heek and Scott Anderson.
OK. We can discuss Nov 13th.
Mike, thank you for sharing. Could you remind me who is on this team you are working with?
Please note that neither Vince nor I will be able to join the meeting on Nov 6th – we are traveling all of next week –
so if possible, could we either have the discussion tomorrow or on Nov 13th?
I know I know we’re not supposed to waste time reviewing this before it’s finalized but:
OK, we’ve got Tech, Community, Product. That makes sense. But … Only five people on tech and product feels thin to me. We already have more than twice as many SIGs; who decides
which SIGs to ignore when setting the roadmap? I also worry about Tech not having any overlap/formal connection/oversight by Product. Tech as described below is nothing like the TC in its current incarnation; no disrespect, friends, but by the rules below
Craig and I would be the only members. So, what is it charge going to be and how will we find community members with the experience and qualifications to carry it out?
Finally, I’m coming across very negative here. That’s not how I actually feel. The goal of codifying the governance structure, making it transparent, and getting the community’s
input on both the structure and membership is excellent and I think will be very important to sustaining this project over time. Having clearly stated charges, and clearly stated relationships among the councils will be very helpful. It’s great to hear this
articulated.
Really _really_ finally, all this needs to be clearly and consistently presented and communicated.
P.S. If all councils are “steering” councils, can we drop “steering” from the names? We could save a bundle on ink.
As mentioned in a previous meeting I am working with a group of people to develop recommendations for FOLIO governance, leadership and membership models. One of the things
we have done is to engage Jono Bacon as a consultant.
The team is working through the 3rd revision of his recommendations, which I’ll summarize below:
1) There would be 3 governing bodies associated with FOLIO:
a) Tech Steering Council: Essentially the Tech Council, with 3 changes:
i) Members are actual code contributors
ii) Members are elected by the community’s developers - i.e. a person has to have 3 pull requests that have been accepted and pulled into the master branch in order to vote.
iii) Membership is limited to 5. The chair is the person with the most votes.
b) Community Steering Council: Charge is to maintain
a healthy, productive community ecosystem, policy, and collaboration for the FOLIO project.
i) This group resolves all community disputes, manages which SIGs or other councils exist, and generally manage the membership rules
ii) Also 5 people, also elected. Candidates must be active members of the community (developers, SIG members, etc.). A general election process.
c) Product Steering Committee: Charge is To maintain the FOLIO roadmap to reflect the best interests of librarians and users and
to work with the engineering teams to deliver the roadmap as efficiently as possible.
i) Also a group of 5. Members are nominated by the CSC and voted on by existing PSC members. Must be active members of the community.
In addition to these groups Jono makes some recommendations about how OLF relates to FOLIO and what the role of the Executive Director of OLF is wrt to FOLIO. There is also a
“Project Leader” role that is mentioned - I’m not clear quite yet how this leader role relates to the 3 councils.
The team of people I am working with are actively reviewing, commenting and questioning the stuff that Jono’s proposed. I don’t want to waste your time reviewing stuff that will
likely change, so I won’t be asking you to review this 3rd edition. But when it gets closer to final I will.
In addition to leadership and governance Jono has made recommendations related to the Code review process.
This is where I would like to get your specific feedback.
I have copied the section of text from Jono’s document into this one:
I would like to get any of your thoughts and feedback on the Code Review Recommendations that Jono makes. He’s reviewed Github and drawn some conclusions. I have no idea if they
are sound or accurate. This is why I’m asking for your input.
I will include this as an item on our agenda for tomorrow. I will ask you all to complete your review and commentary by next week’s meeting - November 6, 2019.
To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=xo7SK3szqx8XnhtxdR5GhDPzoFFO7PZb