Calling the governance circle to meet

In the last months, several governance issues have arised. These have been particularly related to the incoming of funded projects, some of them which apparently did not follow appropriate legitimation procedures within the community. See for example this long discussion started by @almereyda

Furthermore, the parallel build up of a “production-oriented” (agile/scrum) team, focused on the socio-technical developments of TransforMap, raises further concerns and complexities in aspects such as professionalisation (who gets paid and for what), legitimacy and decision making (who/how to decide on projects), and community involvement (how can one join the socio-technical development process, what levels of engagement are possible, what channels of communication and feedback mechanisms are in place?)

As a result, there is a need to strengthen the governance structures, but also actively work towards better forms of involving and engaging the community in the management of what we can broadly describe as the “Transformap Commons”. Calling up the governance circle (ants) to meet is therefore a more than necessary. I have setup a kind of Doodle for that, would be great if you could state your availability @TDoennebrink, @toka, @josefkreitmayer, @wellemut, @Giuliana, @Silke, @species, @alabaeye, @rene, @iramollay, @amy, @elfpavlik, @Michael, @EllenFriedman, @DagmarE, @kei, @DavidBollier

Some of the topics that I found important to discuss, apart from those noted above, are:

  • Defining the boundaries of Transformap as a commons
  • Revisiting the new scrum/agile practices in respect to openness/closure, legitimacy and role
  • Revisiting the sociocratic model: how have we been using it on Transformap and where to go from here?
  • Defining terms and regulations for the use of the Transformap Commons, in the form of its infrastructure, name or users communities

Finally, I throw in here some unsorted action ideas picked up from our last sprint retrospective:

  • Monkey circle is responsible for preparing and taking choiceslegitimation is given from the larger community
  • circle descriptions can be helpful for clarifying what to decide and where. (Governance-Circle issue)
  • Ask the governance circle to define roles about legitimacy
  • role and circle definition gets a clear processclarity in that area is produced, on where to aks others, and where to proceed on your own
  • ask forgiveness better than permission in some times (and/but learn from the transparent documentation)
  • each circle has a status-wiki-page (what is going on, what is the
    contact points, or general stable understandings of the cirlce)Actively ask for comments
  • (Separate) Optimize the tech and governance linking
  • Demand from Monkey circle to see the g. circle running
  • Contact persons which bridge between circles
  • create a project blueprint: (express expectations about how projects should be run: communication (visual), language, documentation)

Looking forward for your comments and participation

It helps if you enter your availability too, @gandhiano ^^

I abstain because I feel my skills are needed more in engineering than in governance right now.

As up to the moment only 2 people had entered their availability, I have decided to extend the poll, together with the possible dates.

@kei and @josefkreitmayer it would be great if you could state again your availability for the new dates.

Also looking forward for the participation of @TDoennebrink, @toka, @wellemut, @Giuliana, @Silke, @alabaeye, @rene, @iramollay, @amy, @elfpavlik, @Michael, @EllenFriedman, @DagmarE, @DavidBollier, @fraukehehl among others

I will announce the date on Tuesday morning.

1 Like

Hi gualtar

Could you please explain more precise the question you want to clarify with

It is hard for me to set fix conference calls as I work the whole day and
care for my unpredictable child in the evening.

It’s easier for me if you just call me. Number below

Thanks Helmut

Send from my fairphone
0049 1573-4448245
Am 29.11.2015 20:16 schrieb “Gualter Barbas Baptista” <>:

How should the TransforMap commons be governed?

Thanks @gandhiano for launching the process. I somehow believe this governance circle should focus on more meta questions that are now open: TransforMap and MMM

Because the way we think the products we want to deliver is very much producing governance, I believe the discussion should revolve around this hot question that relates also to Should we use OpenStreetMap as central POI repository?
We should think of a process to reach wide support of a common vision.

Another thread of discussion that I see very relevant is the one initiated by @Simon_Sarazin: Separate Commons and Commerce to make it work for the Commons
It relates indirectly to the way we are dealing with the SSEDAS request: following @Simon_Sarazin, that request would have been dealt completely separated from the main discussions related to the TransforMap commons, by a service provider.

So basically I see the scope of such a first meeting as defining the priorities of the governance circle.

1 Like

Before such a meeting should take place we have to do more homework, IMHO:

  • prepare possible options for decisions with rationale here
  • rebuild community

Currently the “content creating people” seem to be away or on standby, waiting for the tech guys to get a clearer picture, what should go on.

My feeling is that we need such a meeting to start rebuilding the community. For me the meeting would be a first preparation to sort out issues and further strategies to build a strong governance circle on which the “tech guys” can rely on for moving forward and taking decision on technical, social, economic aspects which are determining the direction and future of Transformap.

As such, I still propose that we gather a decent group of people, sort out (broad) topics for discussion and initiate a series of meetings to define the role, workflows, etc.