On May 22, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Mara Hancock wrote: > We look forward to your feedback on this proposal, and invite you to raise > any questions, concerns and recommendations through the > [email protected] mailing list. We are excited about the future > of Opencast and the Matterhorn project, and hope that for many of you, this > new model will inspire engagement and confidence in our future as a > community.
Dear Mara (and Opencast Community), Fantastic news on the updates to Opencast’s governance strategy. After an initial review of the governance document, and as a enthusiastic community member, I have a some concurring comments and a couple of questions. First, +1 on the definition of “The Opencast community is a collaboration of higher education institutions working together to explore, define, and document best practices and technologies for management of audiovisual content in academia.” This is a different, and improved, definition than what is written on the Opencast project homepage, which reads, “The Opencast community is a collaboration of higher education institutions working together to explore, define, and document podcasting best practices and technologies.” While the origins of the community are rooted in lecture capture, podcasting, etc. the field of audio and video in education has expanded to include a wide set of complementary technologies over the past 3 years. It is encouraging to see the Opencast project also expand it’s vision with this revised definition. Also, as someone who has looked forward to both organizing and participating in working groups with my fellow Opencast community members, the idea of a community governance board is an encouraging one. As those who have participated in Opencast working group meetings know, these groups are formed on a volunteer basis (and typically on our spare time). Because of this, sometimes shared community efforts are hard to sustain, let alone establish tangible goals and results that could benefit participating institutions. If a governance board helps in maximizing the utility of the vast experience collected in Opencast community, big +1. My questions relate to community governance and Opencast-affiliated technology projects. The current document defines a “[p]roject governance structure for the Opencast community and the projects supported by the community. Today this includes Matterhorn” (Pg. 1) Are there plans for the development of additional and/or related policies for incorporating projects currently external of the Matterhorn project as an “Affiliated Project” of Opencast (http://www.opencastproject.org/affiliated_projects)? The area of “Affiliated Projects” may be particularly important to clarify when aligned with the section detailing the community board elections, whereas the current document proposes, “(2) Each organization that does not have a current committer but publicly confirms that it has adopted the technology of an Opencast project will be allowed one vote.” (Pg. 2) Does this current document then propose that only organizations that utilize Matterhorn technologies be granted community voting? If other “Affiliated Projects” could be assumed under the Opencast banner, would this not open up the possible field of voting participants? I am asking these questions under the assumption that the Project Governance section of the document relates solely to Matterhorn. Hopefully my questions above are clear and do not over look any portions in the document that may already address what I’ve asked (which would be embarrassing). Thanks for your time, /Brian --------------------------------- Brian O'Hagan Center for New Media Teaching and Learning Columbia University http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu (P) 212.854.4429
_______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
