Exploring Governance Models: Roles, responsibilities/authority, decision making process, communication mechanisms/frequency (GOV)

Description: What governance models are working for other open source communities? What type of model may we want to pursue? Note: governance model will not be formalized at this meeting. This is a preliminary conversation.

Leads: Dykki

To Join Remotely: 

Join the call: https://www.uberconference.com/info3285

Optional dial-in number: 716-293-6106

PIN: 63498

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Sandy Hawley

Notes from Session:(See also Dykki's Slides)

What is Governance? General vs Direction

• a method for equity- make people feel process is fair

• share knowledge

• a way to make decisions

• ensuring continued coordination

• visibility

• simplify onboarding process for new members

• reduce duplication

• shared expectations of behavior

• ensure activities are done as agreed, equity

DIRECTION - How much direction do we want in our Governance?

• maintaining the roadmap- ensure community's objectives align with what is being built

• ensure leverage donor $ as much as possible

• In small groups like this, tend to have less governance - if gov. is more directive, might have a trade off with innovation

Models in OpenSource

• Dictatorial

• Enlightened

• Delegated
  
  

• Are we concerned that with such delegation, lack of leadership, the product gets watered down or won't be as high quality as with a tighter sphere of direction? 

• There are many ways to do this

• Tech group talked about one group develops something, and one person is nominated to say whether or not it should be committed to the core (avoid bureaucracy)- "Technical Board" ; sometimes there is more than one person in the review/approve role

• Conflict resolution is a key part

• Gates grant expects delegated model

• How many resources would we put forth to bring in volunteers?

  • concern: do we think people are motivated to volunteer, or are they here because they are paid?

  • we want volunteers, but is that realistic?

  • people are motivated to develop personally; company pays them to participate because they believe there is value in participating, to be able to influence and shape the product, and to be recognized as a leader

    • motivation is within open source approach and the opportunities that provides – it can actually achieve objectives by nature of the development community

    • os communities are typically a wide variety and mix of corporate, personal and individual motivation

    • people are here for a variety of reasons, but we may not want to assume that is the structure of this community - what is realistic?

    • donor wants it to be sustainable- when the $ dries up, does the community end? Are we always going to be dependent on Gates and USAID to support the community?

      • fundraising and development skills are key

      • there are ways to keep the costs low

      • somebody has to be motivated to keeping the community 

      • Ideal: we are making a minimum investment that is "running itself"

• Preference (USAID) non-donor funding play a bigger role

• Companies find ways to make money as part of being in community- training, distribution, support services for product - but community largely maintains themselves with sponsorship from company or donor

• Where would we get that sort of private sector sponsorship? Doesn't Gates empower VillageReach to sponsor this? The $ is coming from them right now, but if TW or another company were seeing large upside to being a partner/vendor of OpenLMIS, they could choose to sponsor, but it will be an evolution.

  • The more successful, the more opportunities there are

  • We could get funding from a Google/PS entity  

• We either accept that its donor funded or....

• Generally the interest in this is going to be non-profit

  • our purpose is to facilitate collaboration between members (each who have varied interests)- sponsorship through grants, other fundraising efforts

  • how do we cover the costs that exist?

COMMUNITY COUNCIL RESPONSIBILITIES- DELEGATED GOV (We agree)

• have to be specific about responsibilities, structure, membership, communication - need to articulate the responsibilities of the governing bodies

  • Community Council, Governance "team" - (teams are not governing bodies, they collaborate, but don't have authority on direction)

  • Technical Committee (decided) 3 members 1 CHAI, TW, VR- decision making power over tech contributions; propose committee select direction moving forward

    • people felt like they could commit the time, CHAI on hold, PATH should make a case to join if they have interest or time (time wasn't an issue for those partners) 

• Community Council and Tech Committee have equal authority - collaborate on key decisions; sample responsibilities:

  • membership prop

  • conflict resolution

    • OpenLMIS needs an EMR (clients demand it) - this group would make that decision 

• Values and product principals, stewarding that and revising

• Processes (onboarding,

• Ordaining gov bodies

• Direction

  • Community

  • Product (this seems the most challenging)

• Format:

  • Annual Meeting + one off sessions

  • Product Dev- how do drive the community that is flexible,  but not schizophrenic

    • We don't want to move forward without good process

    • HOW does stuff get on the roadmap?

• We heard/We want

  • move quickly

  • not have a lot of process