Hello all, Agreed that this thread bloomed into an engaging conversation. Thanks for the insightful responses.
After reviewing the conversation within the thread, it seems that Rubén, Chris, Olaf, and Michelle may have collectively answered my original question (and, potentially, additional questions to me about my question), which I have pieced together below. After which, I have written an additional comment. Therefore, in regard to: On May 24, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Schulte Olaf A. wrote: > 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? And... On May 24, 2011, at 1:06 AM, [email protected] wrote: > 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? > > 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? On May 24, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Schulte Olaf A. wrote: > 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... > ... 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'd be of mind to agree with Michelle's perspective on a potential way forward in terms of affiliate projects: On May 24, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Michelle Ziegmann wrote: > 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. ....though with I'd agree with Olaf's comment that an attempt to guide or shepherd scattered projects may be untenable without a careful model and clear infrastructure for the guidance of any potential affiliated project. I raise these questions & comments, of course, due to our own organization's interests, as we have worked adamantly to employ close-focused guidelines for our projects as they relate to on campus needs. However, for our off campus or external project efforts, which are of a lower priority, we've tried a number of outreach methods, and could have a greater potential to connect with others if there was a shared inter-institutional model for herding open source edu projects. Perhaps some other edu orgs have a similar/divergent opinion in this regard? Thanks, /Brian -------- On May 24, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Michelle Ziegmann wrote: > 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] > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
