Attendees
- Danielle Robinson - Code for Science and Society
- Jan Ainali - Advisory Committee
- Martin Magdinier - Project Manager
- Esther M. Jackson - Advisory Committee
Discussion
Danielle's question: What is on your mind as the most important thing to address in this call with OpenRefine governance?
- Esther: How to get down to the basics before rebuilding, how to build consensus at the different stages of reconstruction
- What are the foundational considerations before we jump into solutions?
- Jan: It feels like we are in undocumented territory - what is the governance now? How can we get a mandate for any governance to change it?
- Find the process that gets people engaged “yes we are making a change and this is how we are making it”
- Martin: I like the word you used “Mandate”
- How much authority does the AC have over the community
- We have reached a point where it’s not tenable
- How do we move from discussion and listening in to action
CS&S requierements for the Advisory Committee:
- CS&S requires that there be an advisory committee and that the project pay no more than 49%. The committee must be at least three people.
- CS&S needs someone to sign off on the compensation to the Project Owner or FSP Director and to review the budget
- They must sign an agreement with CS&S, the fiscal sponsorship agreement, and agree to the policies
- They must supervise the FSP Director (in practice, this typically looks like approving pay, and reviewing performance)
OpenRefine Community expectations regarding the governance
- That there be some sort of established and explicit governance model (which can be very flexible)
- They expect a governance model that is transparent to them and they can participate in it
- We are missing strong communication channels between technical stakeholders and the Advisory Committee (or whoever is making financial decisions)
- The community is looking for consensus-based decision-making around the direction of the project (e.g., funding applications)
- The Advisory Committee mentioned that applying for grants and doing technical work are two very different jobs
Communication norms and power distribution
- how do we talk about different decision-making? How do we resolve different conflicts?
- in software open source project power lies with those who can make the software
- Conversations with Rayya, June 2023
- Last year, Martin interviewed community members. They want to participate but don’t know how (those conversations are also summarized here User Interviews Results Part 3: Cultivating a Thriving Developer and Trainer Community)
- Now, this pushback on grant applications and technical commitments made by the Advisory Committee
- Distribution of power within the community: Martin has been working on governance for a long time as the only non-developer, Either you’re in the know and know how those technical decisions are made or you can not see the doors because they’re hidden “glass walls and glass doors”
- With Antonin leaving, the Advisory Committee wants to hire a person to lead his work and needs the technical community to weigh in. This person will triage and merge pull requests and, therefore, become a technical leader of the project. How can the community recognize this person as a technical leader?
What are the positive things about this current structure?
- Communication is positive, and people are engaging with the meeting minutes
- Barcamp was pulled off effectively
- Ah ha moment - bringing in nontechnical contributors
- Keeping the rhythm and picking up things when they come in
- Maintain project priorities
- The Advisory Committee being a sounding board for Martin in his work
- Thanks to the new structure with regular funding, we brought in a person like Antonin for 4 years to support the project. Funding for that work, especially maintenance
What have you seen in other communities?
- In other communities, long-time contributors hold the governance role
- Contributors are all volunteers
- They are motivated to be more involved in driving the process. Seen it as a self-nomination thing. People are willing to take on administrative labor
New structure for the governance:
Martin started a draft of a new governance based on the Inkscape model, which is based on the vote and working group model. That model introduces the notion of project members who can vote during elections. Martin will share his draft with the community for comment.
In that model the Project Leadership Committee (in our case the Advisory Committee) focus on
- governance and coordination
- If you go for grant funding, you put your idea forward to the PLC
- If you want to create a working group, the PLC approves it
The group discussed the option to increase the size of the Advisory Committee and dedicate seats for different positions like
- User liaison
- Technical and developer
- Representative of working group
In this format, operational work (technical, grant writing, Barcamp organization) is delegated to a working group.
How to articulate next steps
- Hold office hours to discuss the change in governance.
- Acknowledge that the governance change is something that will have impact on how we make decision and we will move forward on it based on feedback.
- Time period windows to comment on the proposal.
