[DRAFT] Rules of Procedure for the TDF board

Hi there,

in our statutes, §7, (5) permits the board to enact a set of more
detailed rules for day-to-day operations, that we felt was too
nitty-gritty to be stuck into the statutes.

Nevertheless, it is a useful thing to have, if only to clarify how
the board operates.

I attach a draft that we had circulated last week within the board,
for your kind perusal, and ask for constructive feedback within the
next few days.

A thing of note is §8 - the board intends to hire or contract
someone to operate infrastructure on a daily basis, acknowledging
the extraordinary importance TDF's virtual presence has for our
collective needs.

With best regards,

tdf_rules_of_procedure-2012-09-17.txt (4.44 KB)

Hi Thorsten, *,

[..]

A thing of note is §8 - the board intends to hire or contract
someone to operate infrastructure on a daily basis, acknowledging
the extraordinary importance TDF's virtual presence has for our
collective needs.

I've some thoughts to throw in.

This touches several topics which I will handle within several mails:
- Current state and needs of the admin team
- Work to be done by TDF officers - strategy
- Budget - assignment and coverage

Friedrich

Hi All,

As the infrastructure team by design is working in the background[1]
I'll pass some information for the public.

[1] We're proud if nobody notes our work! ;o))

I'll try to keep it short..

[..]

A thing of note is §8 - the board intends to hire or contract
someone to operate infrastructure on a daily basis, acknowledging
the extraordinary importance TDF's virtual presence has for our
collective needs.

I've some thoughts to throw in.

This touches several topics which I will handle within several mails:
- Current state and needs of the admin team

++++++++++++Citing §8:++++++++++++++++++++
Officers

§8. Systems and Administrative Officer
1. The board will contract, or alternatively hire if more
    economical/practical, resources for professional, secure, and
    timely maintenance of TDF's central IT infrastructure. The board
    acknowledges that TDF's virtual presence and web pages are one of
    its most valuable assets, and thus need attention beyond what can
    reasonably be expected from pure volunteer work.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I can't see where the current admin team - plain volunteer based - did
not cover the above mentioned requirements. Until now all services were
available with reasonable uptime and quality. Please correct me in
case I'm wrong.

We're constantly working to improve our team and it's work apart from
keeping all services running.

Two main tasks we work on for the moment:
1. Rebuild our systems to make involvement of new admins more smooth:
   we regularly get offers from high skilled admins to help us doing
   administrative tasks. One of those - Alin - is already active ;o))
   So it's not a question of manpower to grow our team, but a question to
   adapt our systems to integrate new admins step by step. Some work to do
   on that, some work already done.

2. Getting rid of "single points of failure" for both: our technical
   infrastructure and our personal one. We are underway achieving this
   some work to do, some already done. ;o))

I don't see, how an "Officer" can really help with regard to §8. The
Problem mentioned there doesn't exist from my point of view.

Friedrich

Hi all,

again trying to keep it short..

[..]

A thing of note is §8 - the board intends to hire or contract
someone to operate infrastructure on a daily basis, acknowledging
the extraordinary importance TDF's virtual presence has for our
collective needs.

I've some thoughts to throw in.

This touches several topics which I will handle within several mails:
- Work to be done by TDF officers - strategy

If we pay an officer for doing typical community tasks some questions
arise:

How is his work rated compared to the same or similar work of a
volunteer?

If it's preferred against volunteers work, have we then to hire more and
more professionals which do better work than volunteers?

If the volonteers work is preferred, what is the professional paid for?

I cannot imagine this model beeing fruitful for a healthy community.

I'm not against having paid officers in general, but they should do meta
tasks, i.e. rather looking for people doing necessary work - for example
by poking sponsors to provide manpower than doing the work themselves.

Friedrich

Hi all,

again trying to keep it short..

[..]

A thing of note is §8 - the board intends to hire or contract
someone to operate infrastructure on a daily basis, acknowledging
the extraordinary importance TDF's virtual presence has for our
collective needs.

I've some thoughts to throw in.

This touches several topics which I will handle within several mails:
- Budget - assignment and coverage

I read the last budget report
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.steering-discuss/2662

How much money would a hired officer cost?
How much money would remain for travel refund for community members
visiting the conference. We from admin team had several meetings, which
fosters the collaboration spirit quite well :o)).

I note a heavy domination of paid tech people within our community.
There is a huge lack of people in the non technical part of the
community work. If we ever pay people, we should consider doing so for
work in any of the non tech areas.

Friedrich

Hi Friedrich,

Can’t the board hire someone who’s job would be to develop TDF’s sponsoring channels ?

If we lack people/money to hire for “office” tasks, then maybe we should think about having someone to “develop” our revenues ? In terms of sponsorship I suppose since we are a foundation and not a company.

Some sort of salesperson but who’s job would be to find contracts with potential partners, not clients.

I'm not sure this model generally works so well :slight_smile: Sponsors are not
lacking tasks of their own and tend to value the ability to direct their
own resources: that's why they pay them. Having said that I think you
capture something really important:

  If we contract anyone it is critical to ensure that they are someone
who works well with, and is a respected part of the community. Currently
we have plenty of people full-time on the code who (I hope) work in that
capacity: they do some of the less sexy work to allow volunteers to do
the bits they love best, they help mentor people and empower them and so
on - presumably that pattern can work elsewhere too ?

  For example - we're contracting Tollef currently to do some bugzilla
administration around freedesktop: he's the existing sysadmin in that
space, is widely respected and is doing a great job: my hope is that
that is not too controversial a pattern :slight_smile:

  Aside from that, we have a ton of un-met administrative needs that go
far beyond system administration: you point out one: fund-raising, there
is a lot more detail around the board that requires significant
investments of time to get right - and these tend to fall through the
cracks.

  Anyhow - it's great to hear about the good work you're doing in the
admin team, that sounds really encouraging, and is much appreciated.

  Thanks !

    Michael.

Friedrich Strohmaier wrote:

++++++++++++Citing §8:++++++++++++++++++++
Officers

§8. Systems and Administrative Officer
1. The board will contract, or alternatively hire if more
    economical/practical, resources for professional, secure, and
    timely maintenance of TDF's central IT infrastructure. The board
    acknowledges that TDF's virtual presence and web pages are one of
    its most valuable assets, and thus need attention beyond what can
    reasonably be expected from pure volunteer work.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I can't see where the current admin team - plain volunteer based - did
not cover the above mentioned requirements. Until now all services were
available with reasonable uptime and quality. Please correct me in
case I'm wrong.

Hi Friedrich,

oh, I'm truly sorry if the wording in §8 comes across in a way to
suggest the admin team is not doing their job - amended friendlier
verbiage welcome!

Quite the contrary - the admin team, that includes you, has done the
incredible job of building an infrastructure that reliably serves
millions of downloads and millions of pages to our users. What was
our monthly bandwidth usage again, around 6 TB? :wink:

This is no small feat, and we're beyond grateful to you guys. That
said, you would probably agree with me, that subsets of what the
admin team does needs significant time en bloc, daily attention, and
prompt reaction. In a word, it starts to look like a fulltime job -
and of course that person or contractor would be peer among the
admins, at no time I can see the TDF forego its meritocratic
principles.

Ideally, TDF would have the funds to hire any number of people to
fill the gaps that you and others in this thread highlighted - alas,
this is not where we're at so far. So we have to prioritize, and for
me, infrastructure has critical priority - it is an acknowledgement
of your importance, Friedrich. :wink:

Cheers,

Hi Thorsten, *,

Friedrich Strohmaier wrote:

[..]

I can't see where the current admin team - plain volunteer based - did
not cover the above mentioned requirements. Until now all services were
available with reasonable uptime and quality. Please correct me in
case I'm wrong.

Hi Friedrich,

oh, I'm truly sorry if the wording in §8 comes across in a way to
suggest the admin team is not doing their job - amended friendlier
verbiage welcome!

Quite the contrary - the admin team, that includes you, has done the
incredible job of building an infrastructure that reliably serves
millions of downloads and millions of pages to our users. What was
our monthly bandwidth usage again, around 6 TB? :wink:

Well, my report was not intended for fishing compliments - nevertheless
they are welcome :o))

This is no small feat, and we're beyond grateful to you guys. That
said, you would probably agree with me, that subsets of what the
admin team does needs significant time en bloc, daily attention, and
prompt reaction. In a word, it starts to look like a fulltime job -
and of course that person or contractor would be peer among the
admins, at no time I can see the TDF forego its meritocratic
principles.

I continue not beeing happy, thinking typical community work to be paid
*by the TDF* (from which point should I present the bill for *my* work?)

Ideally, TDF would have the funds to hire any number of people to
fill the gaps that you and others in this thread highlighted - alas,
this is not where we're at so far. So we have to prioritize, and for
me, infrastructure has critical priority - it is an acknowledgement
of your importance, Friedrich. :wink:

Whoohh - so many spoons of honey on my bread! ;o))

Well, consider my words as thoughts and concerns - nothing more. I'm
shure You and the board people did think Your decision well.

Let's continue discussing at the conference. :o))

Friedrich

Hi Michael, *,

I'm not against having paid officers in general, but they should do meta
tasks, i.e. rather looking for people doing necessary work - for example
by poking sponsors to provide manpower than doing the work themselves.

  I'm not sure this model generally works so well :slight_smile: Sponsors are not
lacking tasks of their own and tend to value the ability to direct their
own resources: that's why they pay them. Having said that I think you
capture something really important:

  If we contract anyone it is critical to ensure that they are someone
who works well with, and is a respected part of the community. Currently
we have plenty of people full-time on the code who (I hope) work in that
capacity: they do some of the less sexy work to allow volunteers to do
the bits they love best, they help mentor people and empower them and so
on - presumably that pattern can work elsewhere too ?

Maybe I was not clear: I talk of what *TDF* pays for. I'm happy
community work having done by paid people, paid by external resources as
You describe.

  For example - we're contracting Tollef currently to do some bugzilla
administration around freedesktop: he's the existing sysadmin in that
space, is widely respected and is doing a great job: my hope is that
that is not too controversial a pattern :slight_smile:

Who is "we"? SuSE, TDF?

  Aside from that, we have a ton of un-met administrative needs that go
far beyond system administration: you point out one: fund-raising, there
is a lot more detail around the board that requires significant
investments of time to get right - and these tend to fall through the
cracks.

Couldn't agree more! The boards intention though is to contract an
*infrastructure* officer. Btw.: wasn't me pointing out the fund-raising
issue ;o)).

  Anyhow - it's great to hear about the good work you're doing in the
admin team, that sounds really encouraging, and is much appreciated.

Thanks for the flowers! Generously waving the honey spoon is a nice
gesture ;o))

regards

Friedrich

Hi Florian, *,

Can't the board hire someone who's job would be to develop TDF's sponsoring
channels ?

If we lack people/money to hire for "office" tasks, then maybe we should
think about having someone to "develop" our revenues ? In terms of
sponsorship I suppose since we are a foundation and not a company.

Some sort of salesperson but who's job would be to find contracts with
potential partners, not clients.

Well I'm not a board member, but this sounds like a good idea. Maybe
engaging kind of "kick-off officer" might be worth thinking about, who
helps kick off activities which are considered necessary but were not
mounted yet.

Friedrich Strohmaier wrote:

I continue not beeing happy, thinking typical community work to be paid
*by the TDF* (from which point should I present the bill for *my* work?)

I hear what you say, and it is indeed a point of concern. It is not
without precedent though (it happened for a handful of people on the
development side of things), and I wouldn't say it is a necessarily
bad thing, that in a thriving community excellent volunteer work
might lead to a job offering down the road.

Perhaps a way to make this more palatable is, as Michael suggests,
to pick highly-respected individuals, that are well integrated with
the community already.

Cheers,

Hi there,

here's an updated draft with rather minor edits. If there are no
larger concerns, I'd like to finalize the document later this
week.

With best regards,

tdf_rules_of_procedure-2012-09-24.txt (4.7 KB)

Hi *,

attached is the final draft, that I hereby put in front of the board
to vote on. No substantial changes from the last version, and thanks
to Michael for improved verbiage.

Cheers,

tdf_rules_of_procedure-2012-09-27.txt (4.71 KB)

Hi *,

the board tonight approved the Rules of Procedure without further
amendments. I attach the final version.

Regards,

tdf_rules_of_procedure-2012-09-27.txt (4.71 KB)