Hello Brian As always, very interesting thoughts. Comments inline
> > 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 > > Yes to the addition of whether there are plans to create additional opencast > projects that aren't matterhorn. I don't know the details of any of these, > but I've > heard people talk of them so I imagine things are in the works. > currently external of the Matterhorn project as an "Affiliated > > Project" of Opencast (http://www.opencastproject.org/affiliated_projects)? Just to make sure I understand: This would imply we have Matterhorn as a (main) project, its satellite projects (à la OpenCaps) and other, independent projects that come to Opencast for sharing the mission/vision we have? > Darn good question I haven't heard come up in discussions previously. There > are > two possible pieces here: > 1. Could affiliated projects vote for opencast community board seats? > 2. What is the process by which an established project could become an > "opencast project"? > > I think we had (certainly I had) only considered new projects, so I think > discussion > here is important. What are your thoughts with how affiliated projects would > look? I think this is an intriguing idea - the Opencast Community as a safe haven for all the scattered projects we have seen on list and at conferences. What a nightmare at the same time... > With the broadening of the opencast community and a more clear separation that > opencast is not just matterhorn, does it make sense for affiliated (as > opposed to > "sponsored" or something that implies a deeper connection) projects to fit > somewhere in this governance model? ... because of the rules necessary to organize this. It's good to see we were able to translate the idea of "Opencast" being more than Matterhorn, so I guess that Brian's thinking is the logical continuance of that idea. > > I am asking these questions under the assumption that the Project > > Governance section of the document relates solely to Matterhorn. > > Hopefully my questions > > Right now this was the intent, and that other "opencast" projects would have > similar > (perhaps identical? this isn't mandated anywhere) governance models. Chris, were you thinking of the "whole" governance model or "just" the project governance being comparable to what we stipulated for Matterhorn? And, would these affiliated projects then vote for the Opencast board? Regards Olaf A. > Adoption of any of those opencast projects would entail the adopter to a vote > for > opencast board representation... > > Chris > > > _______________________________________________ > 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] _______________________________________________
