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

Mon Nov 30 03:53:31 UTC 2009

Hi,

On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Luis Villa wrote:

> 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.

I can imagine. What do you think would be a better structure? I had a lot on the website. Well, you are right.... we should reorganize this page. I don't know if the for the website used software is open to question if not, I'll propose the following structure:

1. Merging of section "Projects" and "All Our Projects". Pictures and descriptions are great, maybe it is possible to create a template for it ??

Moving of section "Events, Workshops and Working Groups" to ?? well, "get involved"

2. Retired Projects

3. Starting a Project
(this page should be linked from "get involved") as well

> 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'?

Yes. I'd would interpret this in this more flexible way as well, because I don't believe there are so many people involved that this degree of organization is necessary. 

> Luis

:::claudia