ForumsGovernance

Differences between revisions 32 and 33
⇤ ← Revision 32 as of 2006-11-02 17:58:41 →
Size: 24149
Editor: 195
Comment:
← Revision 33 as of 2006-11-03 01:28:59 → ⇥
Size: 24868
Editor: ip72-196-252-18
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 163: Line 163:
As a practical matter, we in the Forums community hardly see any of the "Official" Ubuntu types on the Forums. While we appreciate the work that "Official" Ubuntu does for the community-at-large, we don't see them as particularly involved in the Forums. Whether that's from indifference, hostility, or simply a lack of time is irrelevant. What matters is this: a major change in Forums governance is being proposed to the Forums community by a community, essentially, of ''outsiders''. These proposals might have been given the benefit of the doubt if the proposers were themselves active and visible Forums community members. But, as they seem to be imposed from ''outside,'' it's hard to know what to think.

Initial Notes

This a draft. Everything here is completely open for discussion and reevaluation. It is, as of the time of writing, the work of only two people and will only represent those views until you start on it. Additionally, this document can updated with time when it stops working. For example, if a 3-5 person board becomes problematic, we can change it. Changes to this can be made by agreement of both the FC and the CC.

Finally, it should go without saying but may still benefit from being said:

  • This document is *not* meant as an attack on the current forums staff or administrators.

  • The forums are one of the largest and smoothest running parts of the Ubuntu community. This document aims to help create a more documented, democratic, accessible governance structure for the forums and to integrate it into the rest of the Ubuntu community.

    The best way to solve a problem is to prevent it from ever happening. At a moment when the forums are running more smoothly than ever, it seems an ideal moment to help pave the road for a long and smooth future.

Forums Community Governance Codification

The forums represent many people's first meeting with Ubuntu and is an important resource for support and social interactions and have become one of the most important subprojects within Ubuntu. They are the single largest GNU/Linux support forums and one of the most important venues for community support and interaction. Started independently by Ryan Troy two years ago, their rapid success was officially recognized when they were designated as the Official Ubuntu Forums.

In a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons, the forums have not been given the recognition that they deserve. Their governance systems remain both separate and isolated from the Ubuntu decision-making systems. While the forums have built successful and effective internal governance systems, including their resolution center, their relationship to the rest of the Ubuntu is less clear. The forums currently have no CC-delegated governance council and no official team delegation.

In short, the Official Ubuntu Forums have not been given an opportunity to live up to their name. This specification, which ultimately aims to be approved by both the current forum staff and the Ubuntu Community Council, tries to lay out a plan for bringing the Ubuntu forums into the fold.

A closer relationship between Ubuntu and the forums will:

  • Increase recognition of contributions in the forums with membership which is ultimately used to approve community council members.
  • Provide a clear delegation and codifications of the existing leadership in the forums and plan for handling these decisions in the future.
  • Describe clear democratic and meritocratic processes for the appointment of leadership and staff positions in the forums.
  • Remove several "single points of failure". (this is not an attack on the people who currently fill those roles, but a recognition that single points of failure are problematic)
  • Describe methods for both preventing and resolving any future inter-administrator or inter-staff conflicts within the forums.
  • Recognize the hard work of the forums staff through recognition as an integral and *integrated* part of the forums community.
  • Provide a straightforward process for top forums contributors to be recognized as full members in Ubuntu, with the right to vote on resolutions posed by the Community Council.
  • Provide for a reporting process so that news, ideas and work done in the project by Forums users will be communicated to the broader community and appropriately recognized.

Changes to Current Ubuntu Policy

The proposal includes both new policy and the codification of a few existing Ubuntu policies. These should be discussed with the CC and the forum staff. After it has been approved by the CC we will add it to the community governance page (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/processes/governance) in the Ubuntu website.

Note that the document is structured to describe NOT JUST the Forums, but instead all the areas of the project which are large and independent enough to have their own dedicated leadership structures.

Team Councils

Whereas small teams are governed by consensus and frequently directed by a team leader appointed by the Community Council, several projects within Ubuntu (e.g., Kubuntu, Edubuntu, the Ubuntu Forums) are large and established enough that they have their own internal governance structures. These most important of these structures is the *Team Council*.

The members of team councils are appointed by the community council under consideration of input from the existing team council and leaders and participants of the subproject or team. In all cases, the CC aims to choose leaders who are well known, experienced, and respected within team and in the larger community. The input of the current team leadership and members play the single most important role in appointing team council members.

Councils play different roles in different sub-projects but they act as an extension of and serve a role similar to the CC within their subproject. They create and review rules and guidelines and resolve conflicts or enforce rules where necessary. In some situations, consideration of membership applications is delegated to team councils by the community council. Like all teams in Ubuntu, their technical and non-technical decisions are subject to review or appeal to the Ubuntu Technical Board and Community Council respectively. Conflicts within team councils are resolved by the Community Council.

This would attempt to describe both what we're planning on doing here and would apply to the current Kubuntu and Edubuntu councils.

New Forums Governance Policy

The following new policy will be implemented after drafting and approval by the current forums administrators an the Ubuntu community council.

It should also be added to the forums guidelines page (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy).

Forums Council

The Ubuntu Community Council will create a new Forums Council (FC) (similar in effect to the Kubuntu and Edubuntu councils). The FC will consist of and take on the roles of the administrators.

The FC and Administrators should be separate roles. FC members should exist only to deal with disputes that are not satisfied in the resolution center. FC members should also deal with interpersonal staff issues if they arise. If either of these situations are not correct by the FC then it should goto the CC. Notation: Ryan Troy

This board would:

  • Consist of between 3-5 members. Membership should be public and published. FC members should be accessible by and responsive to the forums community.
  • Hold meetings regularly and visibly. Meetings can either be in IRC in the "ubuntu-meeting" channel or in a special, publicly visible area or sub-area on the forums. (Of course, "meeting" is perhaps a bad term in this case. Input/help describing this would be nice.) This can be in addition to existing private staff-only forums.
  • Be appointed by the Ubuntu Community Council. Nominations would be public but would be considered and evaluated by the CC based on a number of criteria. In order of importance, this criteria would include:

    * Or better yet lets follow the [http://www.ubuntu.com/community/processes/council CC] way of elections: Appointments to the FC are made Ryan Troy, subject to approval by the CC. Appointments are made for a period of two years. I have to say applying a similar process to what the CC uses would be a good implementation of an already tried and true policy. Notation: Ryan Troy

    * Be appointed by a group meeting of the Forums Staff and Ubuntu Community Council initially (The FC and CC then after). Each group should democratically have the right to object to an Nomination. Nominations would be public but would be considered and evaluated by the CC and the Forums staff initially (the FC itself thereafter) based on a number of criteria. In order of importance, this criteria would include: Notation by:Kingbahamut

    * OR, the FC could be proposed and elected by the forum staff - they would know best who is suitable for the job - and approved by the CC, who would thus have veto power, in case they strongly disagreed with something. Notation: JendaVancura

    • - Opinions and testimonials (positive and negative) of current members of the forums council; - Opinions and testimonials from current forums staff; - Opinions and testimonials from Ubuntu Members, Ubunteros, and other active participants in the Ubuntu forums. - Clear evidence of activity within the forums (quality, quantity and duration);
  • Serve terms of three (3) years. FC members could serve multiple or repeated terms. Weight will be given to proved contributors and reelection of consistently active members should be both easy and common.
  • Be formed, initially, of the current forums administrators (i.e., Ryan Troy, John Dong, and Mike Braniff). We might want to add another admin next year or appoint/reappoint two members next year.

The FC would have a number of rights and responsibilities. These include:

  • First and foremost, the current rights responsibilities of the Ubuntu forums administrators. Smile :)

  • Appointing new moderators and forums staff. While the criteria for these appointments are ultimately up to the FC, these appointments should take into account similar criteria to the CC in considering new FC members.
  • Resolving disputes between forums staff and moderators as per the existing dispute resolution system and forums guidelines.
  • With advice, feedback, and help from the forums staff, maintaining and enforcing the Forums Guidelines and associated infrastructure (e.g., the resolution center).
  • Regularly and when possible, sending a representative to CC members to weigh in on issues of membership and to update the council on the FC business.
  • With time and once things are running smoothly, the CC will delegate membership decisions to the council so that the FC can appoint new Ubuntu members without direct oversight or permission from the CC.

Forums Staff

Forums staff will be appointed by the forums council. They have terms of one year and can be reappointed to additional terms by the FC when their terms expire.

Forums staff should be Members of Ubuntu, and should set an example that is consistent with the Ubuntu Code of Conduct.

Ubuntu Membership for Forums Participants

Forums staff and participants have the option to become Ubuntu members. Current staff can apply for membership at an Ubuntu CC meeting. Their contributions as staff members and contributors on the forums should provide more than sufficient evidence of a sustained and significant contribution to the Ubuntu community.

Dispute Resolution

There need to be no significant changes to the way that inter-user or staff-user disputes are handled in the forums. The FC will continue to maintain the forums guidelines and the resolution center.

There should be a method whereby any disagreements or conflicts *between* moderators can request a hearing by the FC.

In extreme situations only, users and moderators who feel that they have not been given a fair hearing by the FC can appeal a decision to the CC. The CC considers the FC to be a greater authority on forums matters and in the majority of these cases, the CC will likely refer these issues back to the FC.

Any deadlock within the FC will can be referred to the community council for resolution.

All forums issues, including those that involve the CC, should occur not in IRC, but in a special, public forum in the Ubuntu Forums.

Comments

I have given this issue a lot of input within the ubuntuforums staff forum and so I hesitated to comment directly, but with the summit coming up I thought I might weigh in just so both sides have a chance to hear from someone who has a stake in both sides of the issue. First off, I would love for this to happen and I can see some great benefits because it says that what the forums have done/are doing is valued and it gives them a platform to speak from that they would otherwise not have. It would open up the larger Ubuntu community (I hope) to a new way of interacting with its user base that has thus far been ignored...I think all the internet buzz about how great an asset these forums are and how integral they have been in making Ubuntu as popular as it has become thus far is helping with that perspective shift as well. I know and realize that among devs and much of the Ubuntu community mailing lists and launchpad still rule...it seems that some have had a tough time realizing how closed the average forums user is to that form of communication and how excited they are about forums. I think that as time progresses these forums could have a greater and greater impact on the direction of Ubuntu as a whole and if trends continue as they have begun we would hope to see more and more of the dev community around the forums simply because they acknowledge that this is the communication method chosen by a significant number of users...but I think this is likely only if these forums are an official part of Ubuntu.

Being official will create some reasonable limits, though. As an official representation of a corporation we (the forums) do not only represent ourselves...that means that Ubuntu as a whole gains or loses reputation based in some part on what we do. It only seems reasonable then that the community might want some say (or at least the ability to have some say) in what happens in the forums.

At the same time, that part of the community that is in the forums, that started the forums, have a lot of time, energy, money and personal involvement invested in the forums. Things are running smoothly and the forums community is acknowledged all over the internet as one of (perhaps the) best tech support forums in existence. I believe this is a direct result of the great leadership and commitment shown by Ryan and others from its founding. The Ubuntu Code of Conduct is adhered to in these forums and it shows.

Here's the great fear among the forum staff: if we change things too much we stand to lose much of what has made these forums so special. In creating the FC we can either have a meritocratic leadership chosen on the basis of forums involvement and contribution, or we can have a democratic leadership chosen by a vote which might fit that bill and might not. My gut feeling is that Ryan's suggestion above for how the FC is to be chosen is a good one that mirrors the way the Ubuntu CC is chosen. The CC works well so we have a great foundation for believing this should work.

My only other thoughts are a bit more random. Regarding the FC having regular and public meetings...about what? We don't have revolving business items. We don't have projects and deadlines and any need for status reporting. This item doesn't seem to fit with what a forum is or needs. When there have been issues we have either discussed them in the staff forum or when they have affected the whole forum community we have posted a public request for comments in the forums feedback area. That really seems sufficient to me. Our forums council members will be (admins and moderators already are) more readily available on a day to day basis than I can imagine the members or leadership of any other team so things can be dealt with one by one as they come up, and most of the time directly without having to state "I will be here at this time. If you have a problem get it on the agenda and we can discuss it then." In my opinion this item is overkill. Perhaps occasional public meetings could be initiated in special cases like complaints against a moderator involving other staff or multiple forums members...just a "hey, let's all get together and solve this" meeting where more than one or two can chime in.

I think Ubuntu membership should be optional. I do like the idea of having everyone sign a copy of the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, or at least have a tacit agreement from everyone that they will do so as a condition of serving in the position.

Finally, regarding the specified term length for FC members... Hmm... That's a scary one to consider. I can see the reasoning behind it on one side (what if a real jerk ends up there??) and it can't hurt to talk about it. What if we made Ryan the SABDFFL (supreme absolute benevolent dictator of the forums for life) or until such a time as he would choose to step down and then put this in place for anyone new...or just grandfather in the current Admins with the same caveat...they are appointed as the "founding FC" and are appointed for life or until they choose to step down. All future members could be appointed for terms of 3 years, renewable.

I could try to word a strong opinion, but I have the opportunity to save myself a lot of writing, and everyone else the same amount of reading, by saying that I couldn't possibly express my thought better than how Matthew has expressed them above, with which I agree all to the last paragraph, with which I agree mostly.

I have to say that while the message presented by matthew is appropriate,and i'm all for some common ground being found on both sides which helps ubuntuforums,and ubuntu the distro,However. I personally feel any message or feelings that do not follow the feelings of the drafters of this proposal will be ignored. I feel the methods being applied are in the realm of bully tactics,and a better approach should be used.

I haven't been sufficiently convinced that the current structure is "broken" and thus needs "fixing," or that the Forums are so incapable of self-rule as to require such a move. I have, from the beginning, regarded the Ubuntuforums as a separate entity, organizationally, from from the distribution. If the current plan is put into effect, and the forums are brought effectively under the central control of the CC, what does that mean for the community?

Does it mean that Ubuntu community activity outside the CC's immediate control is somehow illegitimate and untrustworthy? Should any independent Ubuntu project now be warned that the CC will want a controlling stake in their operations after they have achieved a certain amount of success?

As a practical matter, we in the Forums community hardly see any of the "Official" Ubuntu types on the Forums. While we appreciate the work that "Official" Ubuntu does for the community-at-large, we don't see them as particularly involved in the Forums. Whether that's from indifference, hostility, or simply a lack of time is irrelevant. What matters is this: a major change in Forums governance is being proposed to the Forums community by a community, essentially, of outsiders. These proposals might have been given the benefit of the doubt if the proposers were themselves active and visible Forums community members. But, as they seem to be imposed from outside, it's hard to know what to think.

The best way to solve a problem is to prevent it from ever happening? Perhaps we should prevent the takeover of the Ubuntu Forums by the community council? I seriously don't see how a successful model up to this point is in any danger of suddenly turning bad. There have been conflicts in the past among staff on the forums, and those conflicts have been resolved, or certain moderators have left in protest. The forums are just fine as they are. Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't see the benefit of this proposal--either to Ubuntu users or the forum staff.

Let me be honnest with this proposition and tell the things like they are. Here are 4 points which are important :

1- I agree with the idea that the CC will help to solve issues that can't be solved by the FC or the resolution center but this is most likely to never happen, but indeed it could be a good idea to have a process for that just in case.

2- For FC members and moderators election the CC will have a consultative power only. The CC don't know us neither the forum neither our community so they are not able to choose someone for a FC or moderator position except for political reasons which obviously we don't care, however the opinion of the CC will have to be taken in consideration when electing a FC member or a moderator. If some CC members becomes active forum members then they will be welcome to be a part of the electing process but this is an inescapable condition.

3- Serve terms : Well, i take this as a communication mistake. Do you realize how offensive this item is ? We are all volunteers who give a huge part of our spare time for the community, you can talk about "serve terms" for paid persons but it's absurd and offensive for volunteers even if the reelection is a common process this is not the question. In addition there's noi benefits with serve terms, if someone don't fit anymore for a FC or mod position then schedule a meeting or deal directly with him the issue it's fine and works great for us. Please think in term of communication to the message you transmit to the forum community, i know your intend is good but this point is really bad worded. So let's remove this point from the spec or reword it completely.

4- What miss the most in this process to be a success is communication :

I really think that all disagreements would be sorted out if we would schedule a meeting all together or set a specific sub-forum to discuss this. Really the whole issue is a communication issue IMO. I know the UDS will be a good occasion to solve most of the issues but this don't prevent a discussion between us, we would all benefits knowing us.

Firstly, I completely agree with matthew's views as represented above, especially the SABDFFL proposal.

The biggest problem we're facing here is a lack of communication. The proposals on this page are about placing restrictions on a HUGE community, and the staff has had no chance to give any input themselves. This is a very different project to any that you have ever run. This is evident by the proposal for regular meetings.

I strongly feel that those involved need to make more of an effort to discuss matters with the current Staff Team. I realise that Ryan is in discussions, but several of the team (including an admin) have expressed annoyance at how they are not receiving any replies. This wiki page is not a discussion... it is just an effort for the staff team to try and express our views, we're not receiving any feedback from you. I realise that the UDS is coming up, but i doubt the whole team will be able to participate via voip. You need to discuss these policy changes with the whole staff team for an important reason. We are in a better position to observe what happens at the forums, as we visit them regularly. We're proud of our Official status, realise that it places many reponsibilities on us and therefore restrictions, but would hope that our views will be counted.

I strongly feel that either preferable a public meeting on the ubuntu forums, or perhaps in #ubuntu-meeting could settle many outstanding issues that the staff team holds.

As a side note, I see no problem with signing the CoC, it is just common sense and decency in my opinion and I agree it should be advisable for all staff to sign it.

Thanks for reading, Pricey

ForumsGovernance (last edited 2017-11-27 15:50:48 by bryanquigley)