ForumsGovernance

Differences between revisions 46 and 47
Revision 46 as of 2006-11-08 00:03:08
Size: 28448
Editor: 207
Comment: fixed one issue by ryan
Revision 47 as of 2006-11-08 02:10:41
Size: 13116
Editor: 207
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 10: Line 10:
 
Line 47: Line 47:
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*. 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''.
Line 63: Line 63:
The Ubuntu Community Council will create a new Forums Council (FC) (similar in effect to the Kubuntu and Edubuntu councils). The FC will initially consist of and take on the roles of the administrators. The forums council is the group that is ultimately responsible for the governing the forums and interfacing between the forums and the rest of the Ubuntu community and governce systems. It will:
Line 65: Line 65:
This board would:  * Consist of between 3-7 members. Membership should be public and published. If council membership falls below 3 members, the board will be considered inquorate and new appointments will be made immediately. The number of members at any given point will be determined by the forums council.
Line 67: Line 67:
 * Consist of between 3-5 members. Membership should be public and published. FC members should be accessible by and responsive to the forums community.  * Decisions will be made by a majority of voting forums council members when at least three and more than half of the total members have voted.
Line 69: Line 69:
 * 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.  * FC members should be accessible by and responsive to the forums community (i.e., through a dedicated forum).
Line 71: Line 71:
 * 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:  * 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-forum.
Line 73: Line 73:
 '''''* Or better yet lets follow the [http://www.ubuntu.com/community/processes/council CC] way of elections: Appointments to the FC are made existing FC, 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 the Ubuntu Community Council in consultation with the Forums Council, forums staff, and active contributors to the forums. Nominations would be open and public and would be considered and evaluated by the CC. Each candidate should prepare a wiki page summarizing their nomination and their contributions and including and referencing testimonials (e.g., something similar to what is prepared for Ubuntu membership). The CC commits to evaluating all nominations on the following criteria, listed in order of importance:
Line 75: Line 75:
 '''''* 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'''''   - The nominees active status as an Ubuntu member ''(essential)''.
  
  - The nominees support from ''at least'' one active forum staff member (essential).
Line 77: Line 79:
 '''''* 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 (positive and negative) from current members of the forums council;
Line 83: Line 83:
  - Opinions and testimonials from Ubuntu Members, Ubunteros, and other active participants in the Ubuntu forums.   - Opinions and testimonials from Ubuntu Members, Ubunteros, and other active participants in the forums;
Line 87: Line 87:
 * 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.  * Serve terms of two (2) 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.
Line 89: Line 89:
 * 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.  * Be formed, initially, of the current forums administrators (i.e., Ryan Troy, John Dong, and Mike Braniff).
Line 93: Line 93:
 * First and foremost, the current rights responsibilities of the Ubuntu forums administrators. :)

 * 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.
 * Appointing or recalling administrators moderators and forums staff. The criteria for these appointments are ultimately up to the FC.
Line 105: Line 103:
== Forums Staff == == Forums Staff and Ubuntu Membership ==
Line 107: Line 105:
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. '''' Does this mean that Forums staff will be *required* to be Members, or does this merely *recommend* that Forums staff do so? --Brunellus ''''

== Ubuntu Membership for Forums Participants ==
Forums staff will be appointed by the forums council. Forums staff are expected to uphold and set an example that is consistent with the Code of Conduct.
Line 114: Line 108:
Line 128: Line 121:
== Comments == == Commentary on Changes ==
Line 130: Line 123:
 * From [https://launchpad.net/people/matthelmke matthew], [http://www.ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=17635 ubuntu forums moderator] and [https://launchpad.net/people/ubuntumembers Ubuntu Member].

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.

 * From [https://launchpad.net/people/jenda Jenda], another [http://www.ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=17523 ubuntu forums moderator] and also an [https://launchpad.net/people/ubuntumembers Ubuntu Member].

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.

 * From [https://launchpad.net/people/sd-plissken Timothy],[http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=36501 ubuntu forums moderator]

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.

 * From [https://launchpad.net/people/luigi12081 Brunellus], [http://www.ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=9506 ubuntu forums moderator]:

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.

 * From [http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu A.Y. Siu], [http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=21941 Ubuntu Forums moderator]:

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.

 * From [https://launchpad.net/people/frodon frodon], [http://www.ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=23970 ubuntu forums moderator] and [https://launchpad.net/people/ubuntumembers Ubuntu Member].

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.

 * From [https://launchpad.net/people/pricechild PriceChild], [http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=43712 ubuntu forums moderator]

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

 * From K.Mandla, [http://www.ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=71172 ubuntu forums moderator]

I'll keep my points brief; I doubt I could add much to what's already been said here.

In a timid way, I find the idea of better representation within Ubuntu to be appealing. I think the average user who makes his way to the forums for the first time assumes that's the case -- that the forums are run by Ubuntu, etc. Beyond that, I think the forums are running smoothly and don't misrepresent the underlying organizations that form Ubuntu.

In that sense, A.Y. Siu is right -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unless both sides can agree on a smooth transition with good representation and a continued sense of self-management, the forums should stand as they are. Cheers and thanks. ;)

 * From [https://launchpad.net/people/polarbeardk Artificial Intelligence], [http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=19 ubuntu forums moderator], [http://gaming.gwos.org Adminstrator of UGA], [http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Artificial_Intelligence Adminstrator for UDSF & coordinator of Ubuntu Game List]

Honestly, I'm one of the sceptics. I'm not much into what seems politics and what looks like unnessary bureaucracy. I can't hardly see how this should benifit the normal user of Ubuntu. One thing for sure I know is that unnessary bureaucracy only makes distances between the normal user and those who's in charge. That's the main thing that's worries me.

All in all it just seems alot of "paperwork" instead of making things simple and transparent.
 * We've expanded the number of council members from a maximum of five to seven. We've made the number of members wholly up to the FC itself as long as it over three. FC members no longer need to be administrators.
 
 * There are no term limits for staff members or administrators.
 
 * There are no explicit term limits for FC members. Term lenghts were adjusted to two years from three.
 
 * The FC council will be able to delegate membership. As a result, it's essential that the FC members be Ubuntu members. Initial FC members who are not Ubuntu members should seek membership at the next CC meeting.
 
 * Forums staff or administrators need not be Ubuntu members. If they choose to pursue membership,they will be able to become Ubuntu Members easily.
 
 * The selection model has been rewritten to (a) require Ubuntu membership (b) explicitly committ the CC to following the criteria listed below and (c) require a nomination from at least one current staff member.
Line 216: Line 136:
 * From Mike Braniff (KiwiNZ) Forum Administrator == Response ==
Line 218: Line 138:
Here is may position on how this should work.... The group meeting at UDS-MTV thank all of the contributors who have taken time to leave comments on the wiki page. Changes were made above that tried to reply to these changes. Additionally, this group has written the following comments to try and respond to remaining concerns that are not directly addressed in the text of the changes above.
Line 220: Line 140:
1. I am not opposed to Ubuntu Forums coming under the umbrella of the Community Council....it always has. A number of people left comments about control over the forums. The control in the current proposal will be almost entirely unchanged. The dispute resolution process described here is identical to the procedure followed today. Similarly, administrators and staff will be appointed in a method identical to the way things work now. This document pertains only to the relationship between CUbuntu and the forums and will not effect internal forums procedures. As a the document says in the introduction, the current forums are not broken and this is an attempt to prevent problems that have occured in the past and to ensure that the forums are fully empowered like other teams councils.
Line 222: Line 142:
2. The Forum was started by Ryan Troy and at run at his expense for a long time. This must always be recognized. And as such He is "Chairman of the Board.

3. If we are to have a Forum Council then this should be Ryan Troy Chairman, John Dong, Mike Braniff with one more to be appointed by the standing Forum Council.

4. Staff of the Forum to be appointed by the Forum Council.

5. The day to day Administration and running of the Forum to be the responsibility of the Forum Council and as delegated to Forum Staff.

6. All Forum Council Members to have automatic Ubuntu Membership if the so decide.

7. All Forum Staff as recognition of service to be appointed Ubuntu Members After 12 months Service.

8. Any member dispute is dealt with as follows.....

A. Request for review post in the Forum Resolution Centre.
B. When a decision is made the member has a limited time of appeal to the Forum Council.
C. The member then has the right of appeal to the Community Council.

9. Staff disputes should have a similar regime as above.

10. Membership of the Forum Council to have automatic roll over. If a standing member stands down then applications to be called for from current Forum Staff with a minimum service period of 6 months.This appointment will be approved by the standing Council and ratified by the Community Council

11. Forum staff have automatic roll over. a standing staff member stands down then applications to be called for from Forum Members.


Regards

Mike Braniff (KiwiNZ)

 * From [https://launchpad.net/people/dbasinge Mike Basinger], [http://www.ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=5551 Ubuntu Forums moderator]

If we plan to replace FC and Forum staff after set timed term, we need to set at the beginning a way to stagger when people step down.

If we don't require forum staff to become members of Ubuntu, they should be required to sign off on The Ubuntu Code of Conduit. You can someone to enforce a policy they have not signed off on.
Several people have raised concerns about the CC's ability to meaningfully appoint forum council members when the CC members are not particularly involved in the day-to-day actions of the forums. It should be pointd out that the CC is not involved in the day-to-day actions of many other consuils.

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 forums council is the group that is ultimately responsible for the governing the forums and interfacing between the forums and the rest of the Ubuntu community and governce systems. It will:

  • Consist of between 3-7 members. Membership should be public and published. If council membership falls below 3 members, the board will be considered inquorate and new appointments will be made immediately. The number of members at any given point will be determined by the forums council.
  • Decisions will be made by a majority of voting forums council members when at least three and more than half of the total members have voted.
  • FC members should be accessible by and responsive to the forums community (i.e., through a dedicated forum).
  • 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-forum.
  • Be appointed by the Ubuntu Community Council in consultation with the Forums Council, forums staff, and active contributors to the forums. Nominations would be open and public and would be considered and evaluated by the CC. Each candidate should prepare a wiki page summarizing their nomination and their contributions and including and referencing testimonials (e.g., something similar to what is prepared for Ubuntu membership). The CC commits to evaluating all nominations on the following criteria, listed in order of importance:
    • - The nominees active status as an Ubuntu member (essential).

      - The nominees support from at least one active forum staff member (essential). - Opinions and testimonials (positive and negative) from 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 forums; - Clear evidence of activity within the forums (quality, quantity and duration);

  • Serve terms of two (2) 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).

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

  • Appointing or recalling administrators moderators and forums staff. The criteria for these appointments are ultimately up to the FC.
  • 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 and Ubuntu Membership

Forums staff will be appointed by the forums council. Forums staff are expected to uphold and set an example that is consistent with the Code of Conduct.

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.

Commentary on Changes

  • We've expanded the number of council members from a maximum of five to seven. We've made the number of members wholly up to the FC itself as long as it over three. FC members no longer need to be administrators.
  • There are no term limits for staff members or administrators.
  • There are no explicit term limits for FC members. Term lenghts were adjusted to two years from three.
  • The FC council will be able to delegate membership. As a result, it's essential that the FC members be Ubuntu members. Initial FC members who are not Ubuntu members should seek membership at the next CC meeting.
  • Forums staff or administrators need not be Ubuntu members. If they choose to pursue membership,they will be able to become Ubuntu Members easily.
  • The selection model has been rewritten to (a) require Ubuntu membership (b) explicitly committ the CC to following the criteria listed below and (c) require a nomination from at least one current staff member.

Response

The group meeting at UDS-MTV thank all of the contributors who have taken time to leave comments on the wiki page. Changes were made above that tried to reply to these changes. Additionally, this group has written the following comments to try and respond to remaining concerns that are not directly addressed in the text of the changes above.

A number of people left comments about control over the forums. The control in the current proposal will be almost entirely unchanged. The dispute resolution process described here is identical to the procedure followed today. Similarly, administrators and staff will be appointed in a method identical to the way things work now. This document pertains only to the relationship between CUbuntu and the forums and will not effect internal forums procedures. As a the document says in the introduction, the current forums are not broken and this is an attempt to prevent problems that have occured in the past and to ensure that the forums are fully empowered like other teams councils.

Several people have raised concerns about the CC's ability to meaningfully appoint forum council members when the CC members are not particularly involved in the day-to-day actions of the forums. It should be pointd out that the CC is not involved in the day-to-day actions of many other consuils.

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