This is what I am most interested in. An idea I wanted to pitch was to create a site similar to choosealicense.com. Except instead of choosing licenses, it would be “choose a governance model” or something else clever. This allows us to leverage the categorization work in the spreadsheet and focus on easier interfaces for people to think about how to organize and govern their software communities.
Thanks for the homework. This is useful for me since I haven’t been able to keep up on the doc work closely.
@jlcanovas presented a quick review of the Poll result for the three main dimensions surveyed.
@jwf asked about the actual meaning of the issue “Accessibility of governance model” in the Barriers and Needs dimension. @georgiamoon clarified that such an issue might be related to the Principles of Authentic Participation, as it refers to the ability of newcomers to enable their participation in the project.
@jlcanovas first presented the following four possible working lines and opened the room for discussion.
Create a template with most-voted elements to help to define explicit governance models
Enrich CommunityRule to consider these questions
Illustrate most liked elements with real-life examples.
Frame questions according to the starting point and development status of the project
During the discussion time, these are some ideas that appeared:
Leverage on CommunityRule templates to provide guidelines for governance models in open source projects. They can also be used to recommend specific models
It would be nice to enable the collaborative definition of the guidelines.
Although CommunityRule provides a general approach for governance, it could be easily reused/adapted for software projects.
Choosealicense is an excellent example of what we could provide in the working group, but for governance models.
As an outcome for the working group, a website (or web-based resource) is much more suitable than a report.
There was agreement on working on a prototype website, including the main recommendations/questions/elements explored in this working group.
@jlcanovas: Create a first version of a webpage, which will include a set of recommendations (based on the questions/elements identified) to create governance models. Nathan commented that he can also help with this.
@jwf: Technical help to create the repository for the website at SustainOSS
Rest of the group: Review the website
Where do we go from here?
I think that deploying and creating the website would be a nice final contribution from this working group. I visualize the site as a two-step workflow where users can (1) check that they have considered most of the questions they need to face to create governance models and (2) draft a first versión of their governance model. This is just an idea for now, but it will be refined in the coming days.
I’ll keep you informed about the advances. Feel free to chip in whenever you want.
I think in this case, it might make more sense for us to team up with CommunityRule instead of building our own platform. I think anything we create or do will have better visibility there, provided upstream is willing to accept our patches. (Guess it helps to have upstream involved in our W.G.! )
Maybe we don’t need to create a new git repo after all?
I visualize the website as the “idea/proposal/motivation site” and the CommunityRule as the “solution” (one of). While the website can illustrate the steps we made in the working group, summarizing the ideas, questions, and survey; I don’t think the CommunityRule should be so descriptive.
Also, I think it would be better to have a landing page living on the SustainOSS side to collect the resources created in the working group (as they are currently scattered in several docs and spreadsheets).
I’m thinking about the website - Besides the existing Governance Readiness page, we can add more pages for you. Does that current page work, or do you want to have more of a stand-alone resource on the Sustain site?
I was thinking about a stand-alone resource to have more freedom with HTML/CSS/JS. However, if the final version is “just” a HTML webpage, it could replace the current website in SustainOSS portal. Let me advance a bit more in the website and we’ll see what’s the best solution.
I think the CommunityRule Guides and Templates are a good home for the content we are interested in. Personally I am -1 to creating a new resource we accept sole responsibility to maintain. I think it makes more sense to collaborate with an existing “upstream” since upstream is participating in this Working Group.
I also think this will give broader visibility to our work and ideas by publishing it on an existing platform instead of creating something new. And it also helps upstream CommunityRule build a more useful community resource.
Putting something up on the Sustain OSS site is a good idea, but I think this should be a summary / recap of the Working Group efforts. In other words, something we do not need to maintain and keep up-to-date. I think the Sustain website should be a redirect for an interested person to learn about our work and discover where they can join the active conversation.
talking about other resources I found this one from the Digital Impact Alliance (a group to extend the Sustainable Development Goals into the digital sphere) an interesting one
“Maturity Models for Open Source Centers”: https://www.osc.dial.community/maturity-model.html
I know we concentrated mainly on the social questions of governance readiness and checklists and the maturity model brings other factors instead, mainly “software code”, “licenses”, “releasese”, “quality” etc but still there are very interesting thoughts to take away from there. Especially for the complementary goals of this working group as outlined in https://sustainoss.org/working-groups/governance-readiness/ : “Identification of analysis dimensions in open source projects. It may be needed for the assessment of the current status of the project.”
I think the different levels they have for each category including a unique ID (for example CD10, CD20 etc.) is very helpful and concise. And I think it allows play of thoughts. For example I imagine a project that has software on level CD30 (“The code can be built in a reproducible way using widely available standard tools.”) but stays on level LC10 (The code is released under one of the preferred copyleft licenses explained in our Licensing Principles.) regarding the license they probably are in need of a governance model to avoid forking or any third-party introduction of governance that is contrary to the current community members of the project. It could be different, however, if the project is already on CD30 and on LC50 because any potential fork will not be able to take away existing names and brands etc.