This is not meant to be a complete account of how OSAF governance
operates but it is intended to be a useful beginning. While
expressed in the language of organizations and applicable to OSAF
staff, we expect community volunteers to operate in this same framework.
Discussion is welcomed.
1. We are an agreement-seeking culture.
At OSAF, we have an agreement-seeking culture. That is, we endeavor
to make plans and reach decisions based on achieving wide-spread
agreement. Agreement-seeking is not the same as consensus, as
consensus tries for universal agreement, which is elusive, if not
impossible.
Agreement-seeking as a central principle is also different than
majority rule. While voting can play a constructive role as an
advisory means of expression of preference, binding procedures of any
kind can underemphasize and even undermine the critical role of
discussion and deliberation in the shaping of plans. Voting on
mailing list is consultative, not binding.
For agreements to be meaningful it is important that those with a
stake in the outcome be participants in determining the course of
action. So, for instance, it's a matter of common sense that those
with technical expertise should be intimately involved in technical
decision-making.
Further, given that OSAF is focusing on software for non-technical
users, it is also important that end-user interests be represented in
the process of creating products and services.
2. Leading is a matter of taking responsibility, not imposing one's
will.
We believe in making progress through giving clear responsibilities
to individuals. Taking responsibility for something can also be
called owning an issue or being a driver. It should not be assumed
that owners and drivers typically operate by imposing their own
decisions. Driving is primarily a matter of attending to a project
with a goal, and taking steps to ensure the goal is reached (or,
occasionally, redefining or setting aside the effort). Owners
typically solicit input and proposals, enable active participation,
and facilitate discussion. In some but not all cases the owner will
also be an active content contributor to the matter at hand.
The owner has a responsibility to take multiple points of view into
account and to try to reach widespread agreement. If there is
disagreement, she or he should use methods to shed more light on the
issue, e.g., by taking it to a wider group such as a mailing list.
However, it is also the owner's responsibility to see that a decision
is made, and he or she has the right in the end to make that call if
in his or her judgment that's the right course of action.
In principle, someone not on OSAF staff could earn an owner / driver
roles. We will have to work out a process and ground rules for this.
3. Legitimate decisions are made with reference to the the vision,
mission, and values of the organization.
All decisions, but particularly ones about which there is
disagreement, should not be made arbitrarily but should be in keeping
with the vision, mission, and values of the organization.
Decisions gain legitimacy when they can be linked to an underlying
set of core beliefs widely shared by the participants.
OSAF's original mission is to create and gain wide adoption of
innovative open source application software of uncompromising
quality. In 2006 it would be appropriate to consider replacing
"application software" with something like "software products and
services which serve end-users".
OSAF's core values include:
personal integrity and accountability
individual initiative
respect
responsible risk taking
openness and transparency
teamwork
sustainability
Applying these to mailing list behavior we might say, "Rude and
personal comments on mailing lists are disrespectful and not
acceptable. Constructive criticism on the other hand is warmly
encouraged."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
