TWiki Community Governance - Proposal 1 (HISTORICAL DOCUMENT)

The TWikiCommunity includes several structures to help it function effectively. Participation in every structure is open to members of the community. See also IntroducingTWikiGovernance for background.

TWiki.org's community governance structure is established with these goals in mind:

• Fair and transparent decision making regarding TWiki features and TWiki community (discourage closed community within open source community).
• Timely decisions, even when there is no clear consensus amongst the community.
• Nurture a friendly and fun environment for existing as well as new contributors.
• Offer sexy projects that attract developers.
• Quality releases, fast paced bug fix releases.
• Flat & scalable community through sense of ownership.

1. TWiki Focus Teams -- responsible for key areas

A number of focus teams exist that are responsible for different areas of TWiki, such as marketing, architecture and code, documentation, release management. See TWikiFocusTeams for information on current teams. The TWikiReleaseManagementProcess governs features and release management. If you have a particular interest in an area, please join that focus team and contribute to their decisions. If you would like to set up a new team, please gather some like-minded people and propose for consideration by the TWikiCommunityCouncil.

2. Meet-up Teams -- fostering face-to-face TWiki user meetings

Local TWikiMeetUps teams organize TWiki user meetings, work with local interest groups, schools and municipalities to foster the use of TWiki and open source software. Meet-up teams gather regularly for a beer, open discussion and idea exchange. Meet-up team members visit conferences to speak, to teach, or debate and to represent TWiki as the leading open source Enterprise Web 2.0 platform.

3. Technical Board -- responsible for technical direction of TWiki

The TWikiTechnicalBoard is responsible for decisions over architecture, release process and tool infrastructure. The Technical Board works with the relevant Focus Team when taking such a decision, trying to find consensus with the team members responsible for the implementation of the decision. Technical Board members are appointed; in the future they may be elected when the community is ready.

4. TWiki Community Council -- responsible for the social structures and community processes

The TWikiCommunityCouncil approves the creation of a new Team or Project, and appointment of team leaders. The Community Council is also responsible for the CodeOfConduct and is responsible for dispute resolution, should it be required. Community Council members are appointed; in the future they may be elected when the community is ready.

5. Self Appointed BDFL -- spiritual leader of the TWiki project

The TWiki community tries to operate more on consensus than on votes, seeking agreement from the people who will have to do the work. Peter Thoeny, as Self Appointed BDFL, plays a happily undemocratic role as sponsor of the project. He has the ability, with regard to TWIKI.NET employees, to ask people to work on specific projects, features and bugs.

He also has a casting vote on the Technical Board and Community Council, should it come to a vote. The community functions best when it can reach broad consensus. Nevertheless, in open source circles there can be multiple good arguments, and no clear consensus. Those arguments may divide communities rather than enrich them. Often there is not just one "right" answer, and what is needed is a timely decision more than a debate. The BDFL should act to provide clear leadership on difficult issues, and set the pace for the project. The BDFL authority is used carefully, in the hope that it will create momentum in the best direction for the project.

6. TWiki Trademark

The TWiki name and brand, and the twiki.org domain name are the property of the project founder PeterThoeny and he has sole discretion in decisions related to these matters.

-- Contributors: PeterThoeny

Comments and Discussion

This topic was originally created in January 2008 and proposed a process for clarifying TWiki decision-making. The original proposal did not gain support (see proposal and discussion) but the topic was addressed in TWikiCommunitySummit2008Q1 and subsequently followed up in TWikiCommunityDecisionProcess.

-- LynnwoodBrown - 25 Feb 2008

I will post the proposal on Mon 2008-07-07

-- PeterThoeny - 22 Jun 2008

I am looking forward to it.

-- MartinSeibert - 22 Jun 2008

See above the initial high level governance structure. Many details need to be worked out. I invite you to participate in the GeorgetownReleaseMeeting2008x07x07.

-- PeterThoeny - 07 Jul 2008

1. Which similar organizations motivated you in your proposal?
2. What are their achievements and weaknesses?
3. How do you overcome structural weaknesses in such a setup known from examples in the history?
4. What are the main differences to the status quo?
5. Do you expect the above structure to be considerably more effective compared to how TWiki acts today? Why?

-- MichaelDaum - 08 Jul 2008

This proposal is useless yet. All the diffrent types of organisation groups cant be established because we aint got to much developers left, which have the will to work together that way.

This proposal does hardly not hit any of the current problems i can see.

If this is our plan for the future, it is build on a clowd, and will therefore not work.

-- MayerEugen - 09 Jul 2008

Please note that the proposal is meant to bring clarity and rest in the developer community. If you see any improvements please write them here.

-- ArthurClemens - 09 Jul 2008

I believe we have the critical mass to form the important 4 teams. The TWiki Community Council (3-5 people with community interest), the Technical Board (3-5 developers), a marketing team (2-3 with interest of Marketing) and one TWiki Focus Teams that manage the release of next release (2 people is enough).

The TCC as I understand it will not be very active. The hard work is in the other teams so I would assume all TCC members would have a membership in another board.

The problem today has been that the core team of today has consisted of very few active members with very different interests and skills and could not act as a team in any areas.

The new governance structure devides the work into areas where people have the interest and skills. And I will assume the marketing guys will respect the decisions of the technical team etc etc.

Mayer. If you imagine that there are enough people to fill the boards/councils/teams - where would you see yourself?

-- KennethLavrsen - 09 Jul 2008

I don't see why we're putting so much effort on governance issues... We have already a good structure to support decisions, which of course could be enhanced (and I think that this proposal enhances it).

The main problem is that the project is stalled. Like, nearly total brakes on. New features are not being discussed, bugs are not being fixed at the rate they could (except for some valiant heroes that try to do their best).

The question is, why is that?

-- RafaelAlvarez - 09 Jul 2008

Some questions:

• Who will appoint the board members?
• Who can remove a board member?
• In regards to the BDFL having "a casting vote on the Technical Board and Community Council", what does this mean? Will the BDFL's vote carry the same weight as others and only be used to break a tie? Does it mean that the BDFL will make the decision if the group does not reach "consensus?" How will it be determined that this point is reached and by whom?
• Can the BDFL over-ride decisions of the boards or councils?

-- LynnwoodBrown - 09 Jul 2008

Sorry for being so slow to comment - I have been travelling.

I welcome this proposal as a constructive move re-opening the discussion on this difficult topic after a long period of tension. As Peter says the proposal is an initial high level governance structure. Many details need to be worked out so I'm going to reserve detailed comment until I have seen the answers to Michael's and Lynnwood's questions - which are pretty much the same questions I would have asked myself.

A couple of points leap out at me that I have to highlight now. The proposal says Often there is not just one "right" answer, and what is needed is a timely decision more than a debate. The BDFL should act to provide clear leadership on difficult issues, and set the pace for the project. Putting it bluntly, it is lack of this sort of timely decision making and clear leadership that resulted in the demands for an improved governance structure in the first place. For the the above proposal to work I think it has to be absolutely clear that the community council and the technical board set the pace, and referral to the BDFL is a last resort, only used as a deadlock breaker. Judging from history, if the community expects the BDFL to set the pace for the project it will not move any faster than it does today.

My second point is that the statement He has the ability, with regard to TWIKI.NET employees, to ask people to work on specific projects, features and bugs is irrelevant to the role. Anyone has the ability to ask people to work on specific projects - all they have to do is pay someone.

I look forward to the answers to Michael's and Lynnwood's questions.

-- CrawfordCurrie - 10 Jul 2008

I like the way Crawford described the role of the BDFL. This way "I think it has to be absolutely clear that the community council and the technical board set the pace, and referral to the BDFL is a last resort, only used as a deadlock breaker." I would agree, that this can work.

It must not come a situation, where processes and decision making is centralized. More and more people should become able to get power if they deserve it. I think, that Peter is the right to lead the way. But Peter should not take decisions against the majority of the community. I truly hope, that the above concept did not want to establish such a situation or possibility.

-- MartinSeibert - 11 Jul 2008

Am glad more and more community individuals are involved. Though I'm still disheartened by the lack of thoughts and opinions from other members. Even though many of us do not wish to get into politics, without the voices of the masses, very little (nothing) can ever get done, especially on TWikiGovernanceProposal1.

I remember once Peter mentioned that he's all out for the community, and will do what is best for the community. And I believe it is the right phase for TWiki to take up a decision and move progressively towards a better future.

If very little (nothing) is done, IMO, TWiki may just die the slow death of Microsoft (think Vista). Even though Microsoft has financially invested billions of dollars and generated much energy. Ultimately, it doesn't mean anything when slow death is just a heartbeat away without a stern and wise sight. Does TWiki want to be like Microsoft? (Note: I can also mention Coca Cola if you wish, both are multi-billion dollar company with much energy involved yet...due to foolishness, it dies a slow death.)

Are we prepared to face the early 2000s again?

-- KwangErnLiew - 11 Jul 2008

Microsoft is neither dead nor dying. TWiki isn't either. This is a single political challenge, that Peter can sort out by simple establishing concrete rules for decisions, that everybody including himself should stick to. We need a structure the leverages the potential of all the great contributors.

We need the programmers programming, the release managers planning releases, the marketing people focusing on marketing issues and the usability experts improving the surface again.

Peter: I hope that you will sort out all that political mess. Answer the open questions of Lynnwood and Michael.

All others should go back to their work, that helps foster the TWiki.org-community and this great software.

-- MartinSeibert - 12 Jul 2008

Martin, this is not a "single political challenge", this is an issue that have its roots back at least to 2003 (when I joined), and every time it comes up it totally disrupts the flow of work.

This kind of "political battle" of between the (not so) BDFL and the community really hurt projects, so it is in the best interest of all that these never happen again.

OTOH, I had hopes that with the advent of TWiki.NET, TWiki development would go at a faster pace and somehow an increase in community participation would happen.

The opposite happened, somehow, with only those with "personal and professional investment" in TWiki active (I'm talking about the core, and you can actually count them with one hand). I think is time to ask "why".

Personally, I currently feel that TWiki is more a "money machine" than an OOS, which is kind of why I stopped contributing back. And I certainly don't blame WikiRing for that feeling.

-- RafaelAlvarez - 12 Jul 2008

Rafael: I do not agree. I do not feel, that Peter's actions are "really hurting" the projects. I disagree with some actions. But basically I think, that Peter is one of the most important contributors for TWiki.

It is simply unfair to question that. I would also want, that he gives more room for democratic community action and would consistently repect the community and only force "legitimate" action.

As I am still new to the TWiki-community, I still hope that this will be the case in the near future.

And I strongly disagree that commercial activity damages the open source software of TWiki. IMHO the opposite is the case. The more companies use it, the more consultants and programmers earn money from TWiki-business, the faster and better the community will live and evolve.

-- MartinSeibert - 13 Jul 2008

Martin, it didn't really came right...

I have never, ever questioned the contribution of Peter to the project. Actually, I'm one of those who actually asked him to contribute less! (delegate more, actually). Even with all the high-quality core developer we have, even if the power of TWiki is unmatched, we all own Peter for his effort to make TWiki as known as possible.

But it is quite telling that exactly the same issue had kept popping up from time to time in these last 5 years (at least), which can be paraphrased "Peter disregards community when community is against something he really wants": Commits without an item in bugs, features introduced without discussion, broken backward compatibility, the banner in the download page, discourage new features waving the TWikiMission as an excuse, people who strongly oppose him gets badmouthed, to name some. These are the actions that hurts the project.

Thankfully, they are not that many, or too frequent, and I see Peter as a rational (albeit too passionate sometimes) person, otherwise this project would not exist.

OTOH, I also totally agree with the "commercial open source" model. A lot of people have been living on TWiki long before TWiki.NET or WikiRing appeared. I don't care if sectional includes (which I initially implemented and was later refined by Crawford) allows someone to build a TWikiApp and gain some (or a lot) of money.

I DO care if TWiki.NET says "I deserve more than other contributors". It don't: The are other companies that have contributed a lot to the project. For example, just look at plugins that have been released from people working at Motorola. Crawford and Sven have invested nearly every day for years in the core. But they don't have a link in the download page to their respective consulting firms (or WikiRing, which is actually a network), because the community decided against it.

Finally, Peter <> TWiki.NET: All the respect and recognition that I have for Peter does not automatically translate to TWiki.NET. TWiki.NET must earn that by itself.

-- RafaelAlvarez - 14 Jul 2008

Let me address some of the questions, just the constructive ones:

• This governance borrows heavily from the Ubuntu project.
• That project is very successful as far as community is concerned, just browse their website and visit their booth at a trade show and you will know.
• the Ubuntu governance relies heavily on the BDFL, to the point where everything is appointed by Mark Shuttleworth. I believe our community is more democratic, thus should have an election model once trust within our community is established.
• Main differences to the status quo:
  • Divide community matters and technical matters into two bodies.
  • Process that should reduce friction; process to resolve friction quickly.
  • Structure that scales as the community grows.
  • Delegation of responsibility.
  • Gives people sense of responsibility and ownership (architecture, release mgmt etc).
• Peter and some of the old core team members will appoint the first TCC members. Once we have built up the trust within the community it should be an elected body, with election once every two years.
• The standard operating mode of the TCC should be consensus building. The BDFL's casting vote in the TCC should not be used lightly, and only be used in two cases: 1. To resolve a deadlock should it come to a vote resulting in it, 2. to intervene if the HighLevelTWikiStrategy guidelines are not followed.
• In regards to "asking people to work on specific projects, features and bugs" being irrelevant: It may not be that relevant at this time, but it is expected that TWIKI.NET will be able to contribute back much more as the company grows.
• Rafael asks why we need this new model, adding a great list in IntroducingTWikiGovernance of what governance rules we have now. I fully agree, and there would be no hurry to introduce this new governance by just looking at this list. I pointed out in HighLevelTWikiStrategy why we need this governance model now.

-- PeterThoeny - 14 Jul 2008

Rafael: I agree, that TWiki.net needs to earn an adequate payback on its own. Peter's contributions are a very important chunk. I am glad we agree on that. The occasions that you describe with Peter as a leader with weaknesses are "not that many, or too frequent". I recommend, that we try to simply accept that for now. For me it is important, that Peter is truly working to better that. That is enough for me.

Peter: Thanks for your contribution and the list of answers above. That sounds reasonable. That is also good news.

-- MartinSeibert - 14 Jul 2008

Please read on UbuntuAndTWiki, why this comparison does not hold and why it is - by analogy - not acceptable that a commercial entity like TWiki.net would take over control over TWiki. Or did we misunderstand you?

It seems as if your roles and plans within TWiki.net and TWiki.org mix too much. How do you plan to separate both? Don't you agree that there is a certain danger for the TWiki eco-system if you have the power as outlined above, while running TWiki.net at the same time - a danger that TWiki won't flourish organically facing such a setting?

There's no agreement on your latest HighLevelTWikiStrategy. So you can't legitimate a veto on its base.

-- MichaelDaum - 14 Jul 2008

I see i agree with Rafael, having all these comitees is not going to solve things. It will make problems worse, because you put into formality these comitees, who then feel they can do something for the project. But as soon as they do something that is not good for twiki.net, the comitees will be stopped by the dictator. And the song starts all over again.

Oh, i have met Mark Shuttleworth three years ago. Excentric chap, really. I have never met you, Peter, but from what i see you are nothing like him!

-- JoostKattegat - 23 Jul 2008

"Rafael asks why we need this new model, adding a great list in IntroducingTWikiGovernance of what governance rules we have now. "

Wow, wait a minute. IntroducingTWikiGovernance and HighLevelTWikiStrategy are not yet finished proposals/topics with way too many unaddressed issues.

You can't talk of it as a fact. Before doing so the open issues voiced by the community need to be addressed. Otherwise there is no and there won't be no common understanding and agreement on TWikiGovernanceProposal1...

-- CarloSchulz - 23 Jul 2008