Dear All, I join Brian in congratulating the meeting participants for coming up with which seems a good and flexible governance model. I have no doubts that, despite being still a draft and subject to modifications, this will help to the expansion of the matterhorn community and improve its internal functioning.
Answering to Brian, if I may, the document refers to any project that can be hosted under the Opencast umbrella. I see that you show some concern for the fact that any institution adopting an Opencast project may take part in the decission process, but I think it is very positive that adopters can engage in the project to such extent. I have a question: don't you think that the consensus to promote an individual to committer, in the terms it is defined (unanimous decission) can be a little strict? I don't think it's fair that we may loose a good developer just because one single institution votes against. Isn't it more democratic to establish an absolute or three-quarter majority rate for the acceptance of the committer? Best regards, Rubén 2011/5/23 Brian O'Hagan <[email protected]> > 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] > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
