Great discussion! Up until now, we've used the "affiliated projects" on
our website in a different way than what I think we are referring to in
the governance model as Opencast projects. Affiliated projects have been
more like advertisements for projects who share common interests. We've
given projects who ask a space to share their ideas on the Opencast
site, as a means to promote what they're doing and connect with
potential collaborators. Most of these weren't about products, they were
more about a collaboration or knowledge sharing communities. Most of
them also, unfortunately, did not seem to progress as they had hoped, or
had a limited life cycle and are no longer active. I still see the
Opencast Community as a kind of "commons" where these efforts can be
supported and where information about related projects can be exchanged,
but I see those "affiliated projects" as different than the Opencast
projects referred to in the governance document.
I think the new board will have to develop criteria for determining what
project is eligible to be an "Opencast project". I would think that a
project has to achieve a certain measure of success or momentum before
it becomes an official Opencast project, at which point it earns voting
power in regards to the board. I think it also would need to be
product-focused - something that is "adoptable", in accordance with the
governance model. It's a nice vision to think that Opencast could
provide infrastructure to support the many "scattered" projects like
this through a process of incubation into maturity as full Opencast
projects.
Michelle
On 5/24/2011 8:44 AM, Schulte Olaf A. wrote:
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]
_______________________________________________
--
Michelle Ziegmann
===========================
Electronic Communications Specialist
University of California Berkeley
Educational Technology Services
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
