Open Source Design core/board

Open Source Design meta
1

Over the years we had a number of active people in OSD who would maintain our presence online and offline. We started with a Signal group where a handful of us are in. We are now however 19 people in the core Signal group which creates a few issues:

  • Lots of discussions happening which should be broader than just to those people
  • Unclear what decision-making process should be followed for critical actions (spending money, digital infrastructure)
  • Unclear responsibilities

I’d like to propose creating a Core Board with 5 or 7 members who are able to direct OSD plans and open up more decentralized initiatives (like events) among wider channels. A board member would be able to propose and vote on initiatives and these would require the majority of the votes to be implemented. Ideally there would be a max of 1 or 2 members affiliated from the same organization in order to limit influence over a single organization in OSD.

A writeup of the current status: Open Source Design core team

Let me know what your thoughts are!

2 Likes
2

I think a core board would make sense. What I think should/could be done before however, is to clarify responsibilities for different working areas like website, events. This would also make more clear where board oversight is needed.

The limited-members of org clause makes sense.

3 Likes
3

I’d maybe even go so far as to say the core/board could be as small as possible or maybe not even exist? To be action-driven, we can instead have specific groups which have full control over certain parts. To maybe even compare it to a company model:

  • “Engineering”: website & job board
  • “Marketing”: events, talks, promo
  • “Sales”: partnerships with other organizations, doing workshops, etc.
  • “Finances”: fundraising & how we spend it
  • “HR”: getting contributors involved, mediating interpersonal conflicts

What do you think?

2 Likes
4

I really like this model as it helps people to self select what they are interested in moving forward and what they are not interested in.

I would also perhaps ad regional/international role to that list!

1 Like
5

I think a board should exist as long as we have some sort of central identity, organization and funds. Otherwise, this important aspect is not reflected in the org nor has responsible people for it.

I like the suggested group structure (particularly having an separate finances group is an excellent idea)

1 Like
6

mmm i agree, after some reflection I think having a low member number board e.g no less than 3 and an odd number to allow for voting clarity. But I would see a board function as a place to ‘escalate’ decisions and issue to as well as gather yearly advice (or another time period)

I think the ‘departments’ are a good idea generally to segment the goals and mission of OSD - and would really help to spread the labour of different aspects of OSD’s maintenance tasks.

1 Like