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.