[OOTB-hive] [GOV] Draft by-laws

[Jan Pfitzner]

Agree - our independence is one of the most important things.
Jan

Sent by mobile

> Am 04.09.2014 um 08:02 schrieb Richard Esplin <richard.esplin at alfresco.com>:
> 
> Given your strong feeling about Alfresco employees voting, I re-raise my 
> proposed compromise.
> 
> I can see the value in preserving the Order's independence by excluding from 
> general votes those who are on the payroll of Alfresco. But committee votes 
> are very closely tied to the work of specific volunteers, and I think those 
> doing the work on a committee should be treated equally in making the 
> decisions of the committee. If there is disagreement, then the vote will be 
> escalated to the general membership and the Alfresco employees will be 
> excluded from those votes. I think this preserves independence, and still 
> allows equal participation.
> 
> I agree with the rest of the proposed by-laws.
> 
> Richard
> 
>> On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 23:41:04 Jeff Potts wrote:
>> I am going to try to address everyone's questions/feedback in a single
>> email...
>> 
>> 
>> *Voting Eligibility of Alfresco Employees*
>> The mission of this organization is to be the *independent* Alfresco
>> community. There is no way that can happen if Alfresco employees are voting
>> members. We already have an Alfresco community where decisions get made in
>> a commercial context. This new one we are building is free of that context.
>> It's a core tenant of the Order.
>> 
>> I know there are employees who care deeply about the community. But there
>> will be times during the life of the organization when decisions have to be
>> made that may benefit one side at the expense of the other. I have seen
>> those first-hand when I worked for Alfresco. When there is a trade-off to
>> be made, it only makes sense that people who depend on the company for
>> their paycheck will vote to defend their paycheck. I don't want to put
>> those people in that difficult situation and I don't want to second-guess
>> anyone's motivation.
>> 
>> I have heard from no employees who say they would be less likely to
>> contribute if they were not voting members. I have heard from at least one
>> who says they will gladly participate even if they are not voting members.
>> 
>> Personally, as a non-employee, I would be much less likely to participate
>> if this organization is not truly independent.
>> 
>> We cannot use job title as a filter. The conflict exists regardless of
>> title. I can think of individuals at Alfresco in all job titles and
>> departments who are passionate community supporters and I can think of
>> individuals in all job titles and departments who are fair-weather
>> supporters, to put it kindly.
>> 
>> I have seen a proposal that Alfresco employees should be able to vote, but
>> not be on the Board. The problem with that is that the Board has no real
>> power, by design. It is mostly administrative. So preventing an employee
>> from being on the Board does nothing once they are voting members.
>> 
>> This organization must be able to make decisions without caring at all
>> about how those decisions impact the profits of Alfresco Software. It's
>> really that simple.
>> 
>> *Who Can Join*
>> 
>> Thoughts on who can join the Order:
>> * I do not think we should have a litmus test for people who want to be
>> considered members. We need all of the help we can get.
>> * I agree that we do not want to risk losing control of the organization
>> to people with bad motives or those who actually don't care that much about
>> the mission.
>> * I don't think it is possible to define an objective membership criteria
>> that can be applied by a single person that will result in decisions that
>> we all agree with.
>> * I don't want to discourage people from publicly showing their support.
>> * We need help but we have very little to give in return. One thing we do
>> have that is valuable is the ability to give someone a vote. An individual
>> who can vote has the power to influence the destiny of the organization.
>> But they should only be granted that power in trade for what we value:
>> their time and energy.
>> 
>> So I propose the following:
>> 
>> (1) We allow anyone to become a member. If they found out about us
>> yesterday and do nothing else but submit the form, they can be added to the
>> list of members with no questions asked. They will be non-voting members
>> but they will be members. This will help us grow our community and make our
>> supporters visible without granting casual participants any power at all.
>> This also gives people a "ramp" for participating in the community. It's a
>> low barrier to entry (with a corresponding low level of power).
>> 
>> (2) Everyone starts as a non-voting member. A voting member can propose
>> that a non-voting member be changed to a voting member once they've proven
>> themselves by working on a committee. The voting member does this by
>> sending an email to a list that is private to existing voting members. The
>> existing voting members discuss whether or not that person has made enough
>> contributions to the Order (not only to the Alfresco community, but to the
>> Order, specifically) to be made into voting members and they hold a vote on
>> the private list. If this vote passes, they are now voting members. This is
>> basically the Apache process.
>> 
>> Over time we'll grow into a scalability problem with this approach. When
>> that happens, we'll delegate membership voting to each committee.
>> 
>> (3) Right now we should consider the list of voting members to be the
>> Board. The Board can vote on each of the members who have already signed up
>> which will expand the list of voting members to include those who have been
>> working hard on their committees thus far. Then we will continue to have
>> membership votes as needed as the committees grow and more people start to
>> contribute.
>> 
>> *The 2/3 Majority Rule*
>> 
>> If we go with the idea that everyone starts as a non-voting member, and
>> people are made voting members only after they make multiple contributions
>> to the Order, I think the 2/3 majority rule concern raised by Bindu is
>> addressed. Voting members will not be spammers, lurkers or casual
>> participants. They will have demonstrated a willingness to work hard for
>> the Order. If they leave they can request a leave of absence or "emeritus"
>> status (again, similar to Apache) which will keep the list of voting
>> members clean and we can use the 2/3 majority rule for a small number of
>> extremely important types of votes as specified in the by-laws.
>> 
>> *Board, Committees, Committee Chair*
>> 
>> Yes, the Committee members do the work led by a Committee Chair. The Board
>> members are likely also members of Committees. Board members do not have to
>> be Committee Chairs but can be if that is the wish of the Committee.
>> 
>> Oksana proposed the idea that Board members might be responsible for
>> different areas/committees. I am open to that idea. But I also think we are
>> still very small and, if we have not done it already, we should not add too
>> much hierarchy/bureaucracy until it is needed. I propose that we table this
>> idea until we need it. That's not something we need in the by-laws anyway.
>> 
>> *Board Term Length*
>> 
>> I proposed a term length of 2 years because 1 year felt too short to get a
>> lot done and 2 years seemed too long to not have a chance for the
>> membership to make adjustments. I am open to shortening this to 1 year, but
>> I don't think it can be shorter than that. As proposed, the election cycle
>> is something like 90 days already. Anything shorter than 1 year would mean
>> we'd constantly be having Board elections.
>> 
>> 
>> *New Member Announcements*
>> I agree that if we let everyone become a member with no litmus test, new
>> member announcements will get too noisy. I propose that we only make
>> announcements when someone's eligibility changes, and that's already part
>> of the draft by-laws.
>> 
>> I think I've addressed all of the feedback so far. Looking forward to
>> hearing whether or not the concerns are addressed with these proposed
>> changes.
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Fernando González <fegor at fegor.com> wrote:
>>> Hi guys!
>>> 
>>> I think it's very positive manage the organization of bees.
>>> 
>>> Regarding the voting members (engineers / programmers) of Alfresco Inc. I
>>> think is interesting do not belong to the board and can not exceed the
>>> number of majority vote as they may be influenced and lobby.
>>> 
>>> Regards!
>>> 
>>> Fernando González Ruano
>>> http://www.fegor.com
>>> 
>>> skype: fegorama
>>> twitter: @fegorama
>>> 
>>> twitter: https://twitter.com/fegorama
>>> facebook: http://tinyurl.com/ok2wko6
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Raubenohran, npnonf qr qrfphoeve ry zrafnwr hfnaqb ry nytbevgzb EBG13,
>>> rerf yn pnñn qr Rfcnñn... nuben cbagr n genonwne qr ireqnq ;)
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014-09-03 14:34 GMT+02:00 Oksana Kurysheva <okurysheva at gmail.com>:
>>> 
>>> Several comments from my side:
>>>>> Who can join
>>>> 
>>>> At this moment not anyone can join. We have 1 requirement: a person
>>>> should do something for the community: developed a free add-on, write a
>>>> helpful post about Alfresco, organize a meet-up or speak on Alfresco
>>>> Summit. We don't want to see 100 new members from one company who just
>>>> want
>>>> to seize a power by voting to the points they are interested in.
>>>> 
>>>>> Board
>>>> 
>>>> How does Board relates to committees? Board coordinates the activities,
>>>> but Committees work on activities, and Chair is responsible for their
>>>> actions. There is the link?
>>>> 
>>>>> Board Elections
>>>> 
>>>> 2 years is a very big period of time. What about half of a year? Or a
>>>> year as a maximum?
>>>> 
>>>>> Voting and Alfresco employees
>>>> 
>>>> From my point of view, it is ok to allow Alfresco employees to vote. We
>>>> will not approve requests to join the Order from someone from the Sales
>>>> team, as far as they don't contribute to community. And I believe in
>>>> sober
>>>> assessment of the situation from the technical people. The only
>>>> restriction
>>>> I see here is that Alfresco employees cannot become Board Members.
>>>> 
>>>>> Voting members
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think that all members should introduce themselves via the public
>>>> list, it can generate too much noise. As for now, (almost) all new
>>>> members
>>>> filled information about themselves while sending request to join. If
>>>> they
>>>> didn't mention any contribution, I asked them for a list of contributions
>>>> via email, and didn't add them to the website before they reply. Using
>>>> this
>>>> schema some people have not been added as a members, but they will follow
>>>> us in social networks until they make some contributions. Everyone
>>>> understands and like the idea of "contributions as a requirement to
>>>> join".
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> One more idea about Board Election. Maybe it's crazy and we should not
>>>> follow it:
>>>> We elect 5 independent members that should communicate a lot with each
>>>> other and collaborate in many activities. Together they should cover all
>>>> our activities and committees. I afraid of the situation when all members
>>>> will be specialists in the same area.
>>>> Sample:
>>>> If there are 6 candidates:
>>>> 4 of them work on add-ons
>>>> 1 - for Gov committee and
>>>> 1 - for events organization
>>>> Many members like add-ons, so 4 members from the Add-ons committee will
>>>> be elected easily. And let's imagine that voting members chose 1
>>>> candidate
>>>> from Gov as fifth Board Member. After that we don't have any control in
>>>> coordination on meetups and conferences, because all Board members are
>>>> not
>>>> interested in this topic.
>>>> What about electing a full Board (team of 5 people)? Campaigning phase
>>>> can be a time then nominates tell not only about their activities and who
>>>> are they, but also how can they coordinate with each other and how will
>>>> they work as a Board? So we should vote not for 1 person, but for the
>>>> team
>>>> of 5 people. One person can be a member of several candidate teams.
>>>> 
>>>> Another way to solve this issue is to create roles in the Board. Like: 1
>>>> person should be responsible for new activities and committees, 1 person
>>>> -
>>>> for technical aspects of our add-ons and Honeycomb, 1 - for marketing and
>>>> events, other 2 can be elected as independent.
>>>> 
>>>> Any comments?
>>>> 
>>>> Oksana
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jan Pfitzner <jan at alfrescian.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> first of all: thanks Jeff for writing this down.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From my point of view, it is OK to allow Alfresco employees to vote.
>>>>> But, this also opens a way for Alfresco Inc. to undermine the OOTB. As
>>>>> long
>>>>> we are talking about Alfresco Engineers (& Richard ;-)) I'm sure that
>>>>> they
>>>>> will respect & support our vision. I wouldn't say the same about general
>>>>> management, sales ...
>>>>> Jan
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2014-09-03 7:17 GMT+02:00 Richard Esplin <richard.esplin at alfresco.com>:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I really like the draft of by-laws.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> However, I am still concerned by the restriction that prevents
>>>>>> employees of
>>>>>> Alfresco from voting.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I understand the concern about independence, but I also think it is de-
>>>>>> motivating that an Alfresco employee could contribute to the Order and
>>>>>> not be
>>>>>> able to participate on decisions involving their efforts.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So I propose a compromise.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alfresco employees would vote in their committees, but not in a general
>>>>>> membership vote. I think anyone actively contributing on a committee
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> treated equally with other members of the committee. But if a committee
>>>>>> issue
>>>>>> is impactful enough or divisive enough to require a broad membership
>>>>>> vote,
>>>>>> then Alfresco employees would not participate in that vote.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This would require removing "committe vote" from the first sentence in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> section on "Voting Members". The section on "Non-Voting Members" would
>>>>>> need an
>>>>>> additional sentence like "Non-Voting Members who are members of
>>>>>> committees may
>>>>>> vote equally with other members of their committees on subjects
>>>>>> restricted to
>>>>>> the affairs of those committees of which they are a member, but are not
>>>>>> counted
>>>>>> in general votes."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Does this address everyone's concerns?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 23:10:39 Jeff Potts wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Bees,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I've drafted a rough set of by-laws. I am trying to keep it short--it
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> primarily focused on how we are organized, how board elections work,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> voting works, and voting eligibility.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/gov/blob/master/bylaws.md
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A lot of it is repeat from my original "organizing ourselves" email
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> some feedback from that thread folded in (a longer voting period, for
>>>>>>> example).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The document is purposefully free of mission/vision/strategy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> statements,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> specific committee names, or anything that needs to be fungible.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'll give everyone some time to digest this and suggest feedback,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> then when
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> it seems like we're close to something we can agree on we'll put it
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> to a
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> formal vote.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would like to have these ratified before Alfresco Summit so if you
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> feedback, don't sit on it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OOTB-hive mailing list
>>>>>> OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
>>>>>> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OOTB-hive mailing list
>>>>> OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
>>>>> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> С уважением,
>>>> Оксана Курышева
>>>> <okurysheva at gmail.com>
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OOTB-hive mailing list
>>>> OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
>>>> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OOTB-hive mailing list
>>> OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
>>> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OOTB-hive mailing list
> OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive