The five members of staff

My candidates are:
@simonv3
@jan
@belenbarrospena
@ei8fdb
@jdittrich

:slight_smile: someone will need to count the votes :slight_smile:

I am very thankful for @grahamperrin that set up the Discourse instance, but I think the admins should be long time members of OSD that everyone trust. Graham lately had so much contributions, but I hardly talk with @studiospring or see his contributions. This is gained in time.

So I can say that I don’t agree with the description of the “balance and inclusivity” criteria:

I expect the admins to know very well what has been done in our community and to represent us. Also they should be minimal technical, willing to be admins and ideal cover both EU and USA timezones (for better responsiveness in case of troubles) (Victoria would have been great for the APAC zone, but she moved :slight_smile: )

Open Source contributors sometime lose interest in some projects and might not be involved as in the beginning. So if we always want to have active / trusted members as admins we can hold this kind of votes periodically (once a year for example or in case we have a particular position to be replaced).

2 Likes

Ooh, I like that a lot.

1 Like

My votes go out to:

@simonv3
@jan
@belenbarrospena
@pdurbin
@bnvk - I know he doesn’t want it but I trust him when it comes to respecting people privacy so he gets my vote anyway.

I like the idea of votes periodically that @evalica suggested as well.

1 Like

My nominations are:

@evalica (her thoughtful, level-headed, and honest-matter-of-factness approach when needed)
@simonv3 (when I read his comments I find myself agreeing)
@belenbarrospena (her long term involvement in open source projects and design, and her level-headedness)
@victoria-bondarchuk (her open way of discussion and doing things)
@jan (his involvement on open source and design and get-sh1t-done approach)

I agree with @evalica’s points about trust, longevity in involvement.

I’ve met all the above in person and worked with them at FOSDEM over the past 3 years and trust them. The only exception is @simonv3, but for my reasons above I trust him.

I do also agree we should discuss the possibility of periodical voting. It will bring the balance and inclusivity that @grahamperrin mentions which I think this is a good idea.

But (my personal opinion is) this view should come from community members who have been involved for a period of time.

Thank you to those who nominated me.

Also a big thank you to @grahamperrin and @studiospring for bringing us here. I hope you to see you at FOSDEM or at an OSD event nearer.

:tada:

1 Like

I tallied the votes so far and listed the current results in my reply at


Please make sure to double-check.

People who have yet to nominate their 5 candidates:
@jdittrich @pdurbin @grahamperrin @studiospring @htietze @incabell @xaviju @eppfel @elioqoshi … and you, if you read this :slight_smile:

1 Like

Nominations:

And there are some possible variations – (@evalica, do you like to be admin? I don’t remember anymore if you were much interested in discourse). Also I could imagine one of the openusability people being in the admin group, maybe @htietze if he likes?

1 Like

I agree with the current tally, so my nominations are:

@belenbarrospena
@jan
@evalica
@simonv3
@jdittrich

Because of the obvious reasons stated by you already! :heart_eyes:

I think it is a very good idea to hold annual polls about those fixed positions (not just this forum).

4 Likes

Yeap, I would like that :slight_smile: Thanks for the nomination :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Same vote from my side

Updated the tally. Please also cast your 5 nominations @pdurbin @grahamperrin @studiospring @incabell @xaviju @elioqoshi @ryangorley @rosanardila @guiguru @rioev @Roy @danila.pellicani and others. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I’m not at all clear what is being discussed here :slight_smile:

Long story short, we’re determining who the five admin of the discourse forum should be. Usually we just grant anyone “once we trust them” (very nebulous and probably should be written down in the by-laws) admin status, but we’re limited in this situation because Discourse limits us to 5 admin.

1 Like

Thanks! I’ve been out of the loop and trust people will make a good decision.

@evalica
@belenbarrospena
@jan
@jdittrich
@simonv3

@jan
@belenbarrospena
@simonv3
@evalica
@jdittrich

I can understand why many core members are (or at least seem) quite nervous about a noob being an admin of the forum. You’ve never met me (and probably never will), I have not made a bunch of contributions (yet) and I do not seek the limelight. I don’t think that these are things I should apologise for, though some of your comments make it sound like this is a problem. There are also plenty of people who you know to be highly capable. Better the devil you know.

However, there are some glaring (at least to me!) inconsistencies between the decision making procedures here, the basis upon which some core members make decisions and the protocols and values described in the By-laws and Code of Conduct.

One characteristic of the open source movement that I was attracted to was the ability for anyone from anywhere around the world to contribute, not just people who have the means to travel to Europe. I also admire the level of trust in both code contribution and usage within the open source community. But above all, I find the rule of logic and (relative) lack of bullshit very refreshing. Unfortunately, I feel let down on all counts here, which pains me greatly, since I am passionate about open source and design.

In the open source software world, it is customary for the person/people who show initiative and start a project to maintain it. I understand that community contribution is different from code contribution, since each admin action cannot be vetted (although most can be reversed). In bringing an open approach to community development, we are (or could be) trying something new. However, many comments suggest that only “core members” can take on positions of responsibility in this community, although the Code of Conduct and By-laws make no such reference and in fact encourage radical inclusiveness. Is this an unwritten rule that should be put in writing somewhere? The reason I ask is because these comments send a very unwelcome message to future contributors.

Many of you will know that I was intending to start an online survey to better understand and serve members. I realise this is a very cynical view, but many comments here do make me wonder if some of you are just going to pull the rug from under me and take credit for the survey after I set it up.

I am aware that [these issues] (https://github.com/opensourcedesign/organization/issues/61) are still in flux but this seems like a great opportunity (and litmus test) to show exactly what Open Source Design stands for and that it understands the values that underpin openness in design: trust and inclusiveness.

I would suggest that if you truly wish to be considered trusted members of a community that you at least follow the By-laws and CoC. Otherwise your actions come across as hypocritical and set a bad example. For this vote, there is no mention of a two week deadline and I question the choice of venue which has so few Open Source Design members. There are other inconsistencies, like a requirement for a diverse committee for decision making, but now not a diverse admin team.

Even if the very same people are voted in when following your protocols, there is a fundamental difference in principle that everyone here has wilfully ignored.

Since we are discussing the issue of admins, I would like to publicly state that I do not wish to be nominated unless there is a lack of interest in the positions (which does not seem to be a problem). This has nothing to do with what I see as double standards, it has been my position from the outset.

I will abstain from voting because the way you have chosen to decide admins and the basis upon which you choose them runs counter to the publicly stated rules and values of Open Source Design, which I would expect core members to uphold.

From quite early on, I have mentioned to a number of people that I consider the current admins to be interim positions and expect admins to be chosen according to the By-laws and CoC. I hope you can show current members and future contributors that members’ actions are consistent with your organisation’s protocols and values by:

  • voting on GitHub (or on Discourse at a time when there is a representative sample of members).
  • giving a proper deadline.
  • nominating candidates who demonstrate the values promoted by Open Source Design.
  • choosing candidates on the basis of organisational values, not simply on points that favour core members.

I look forward to your reasoned responses. :slight_smile:

1 Like

My votes go to:

@belenbarrospena
@jan
@evalica
@simonv3
@jdittrich

For reasons which were stated more or less before as well :slight_smile:

I suppose, that a new person being admin is rather unusual in many projects, yes. (And unusual things can make people nervous) Most times people come in communities by watching, doing some simple tasks, more and more complicate ones etc. (so called “Legitimate peripheral participation”) I don’t say this is an awesome social pattern or that there are no alternatives, but it seems to be the standard.

Well – if you start from scratch, this is plausible. However, in extending an existing community, things are more tricky, since the coherence of the community should continue – do all want the same and deal with it similarly?
And in this regard, this community had a bit of a difficult start, e.g. since there were some conflicts around definition and value and thus of enactment of “openness”/“private”. And yes, that may make some people concerned about keeping the community together.

1 Like

[quote=“studiospring, post:36, topic:25”]
…inconsistencies between the decision making procedures here, the basis upon which some core members make decisions and the protocols and values described in the By-laws and Code of Conduct.[/quote]

I think we should have a stable by-laws and CoC, however they currently are not and state “vote after a certain amount (TODO: how long?)” and the like.

I agree with you that a proper deadline would make sense.

It is plausible to say “more people are on github, let’s go there” but I find it equally plausible to say “people who are interested in discussions/exchange from our community are probably already on discourse, and those are the people whom the outcome will concern”. Neither is wrong, imho, the current situation is the latter.

While I agree with these in principle – who can check that a vote is given or not given due to this? (I say vote, not nomination, since there was no nomination of a pool of people to choose from)

1 Like

Thank you for your clear and level headed response! This is what I signed up for!

I agree 100% with your points. Our situation is not a simple, clear cut case. Discourse is a new venue for an existing community and as a rule, people should earn trust. However, encouraging and supporting @grahamperrin in setting up Discourse can only be viewed as a (generous) mark of trust. Personally, I do not think he has betrayed that trust and some comments and votes can easily be (mis)interpreted as a sign of distrust.

Furthermore, despite the use of Discourse having been conceived and set up by noobs, having only the same core members as admins just sends the wrong message to potential contributors. If you had put forward these objections when Discourse was still under consideration, they would have carried much more weight.

Having a mix of newcomers and core members inspires more confidence in me that things will be done by the book and in the spirit of Open Source Design than having only core members as admins.