[okfn-discuss] Governance and structure of the Open Knowledge Foundation and its activities

Wed Nov 25 18:54:32 UTC 2009

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> 2009/11/24 Luis Villa <luis.villa at gmail.com>:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> [...]
>>> What do people think? What is good/bad, in need of amendment or clarification?
>>
>> I guess I'd question the underlying assumption:
>>
>>> ## Background to this
>>>
>>> Discussion over the summer indicated that clearer structure and
>>> governance is needed, see:
>>>
>>> <http://wiki.okfn.org/Vision/Structure>
>>
>> My recollection of the discussion was that clearer structure was
>> definitely needed, but not necessarily governance. Governance of this
>> sort can be helpful if there is a lack of decision-making capability,
>
> What exactly would be the distinction between clearer structure and
> clearer governance here? (I think you are right there is one but I'm a
> bit hazy on what it would mean concretely ...)

Well, the problem I was having in the earlier discussion was that I
was having a hard time knowing what all the projects of OKFN were,
where to find information about the projects, who key volunteers are,
etc. I'd consider that structural information.

Governance goes beyond knowing 'who are the key volunteers I should
contact if I want to get involved' to something like 'who is formally
charged with decision making', and the list of things you've discussed
earlier in this thread seems a lot closer to the latter than the
former (but I may be misunderstanding.)

>> but as far as I can see the problem here is lack of bodies/resources,
>> not lack of decision-making capability. In fact, heavyweight
>> governance structures can be a significant drain on time/resources-
>
> Quite agree. Aim here is not to wheel in some heavy decision-making
> apparatus but have a clearer idea on whose involved and doing what. My
> hope would be that e.g. meetings of Project Committee would be focused
> on the "doing stuff" end of the spectrum e.g. what particular projects
> are doing, helping to coordinate that, sorting out resources etc,
> rather than dealing with too much heavy decision-making.

I guess I see those tasks as the province of 'whoever is doing the
work at any given time' rather than a formally enumerated body. The
former is flexible and ad hoc- whoever shows up shows up, and you work
from there; the latter seems more fixed- you have to Be On The
Committee.

But maybe I'm just reading too much into the word 'Committee'?

Luis