CiviCRM currently displays a listing of partners and contributors at https://civicrm.org/experts. Additionally, CiviCRM acts as a filter/referrer to list members when directly contacted (most often through "info@civicrm.org"), attempting to qualify leads and referring them to a suitable partner/contributor. In the past, CiviCRM and its partners have discussed a more formal mechanism/funnel to facilitate this process.
The purpose of this item is to identify a fair, more automated and participatory process in which potential leads can more easily connect with ideal partners/contributors.
The idea of governance sprints is a great idea and when it comes to things like the other issues currently logged (which touch on branding) I think those things are resolvable within the sprint.
However, often when I hear reference to governance within the community it is actually a way of referring to resource allocation & specifically re-allocating (or allocating resources that don't exist) to areas the person care about. The sprint is a great place for teething out the issues involved in questions like that - but it's not appropriate for it to be a decision making place for those decisions as many people are not able to attend.
So, I would propose that one topic for the sprint is how the sprints can usefully advance a topic without guzumping community involvement in decisions. Personally I would certainly prefer to see 'issues & options' documents coming out of the sprint over 'this is our proposal'.
Partners and contributors are vital to the sustainability and improvement of CiviCRM. Though programs exist to "incentivize/reward" partner and contributor support, these harve largely remained unchanged for several years. The purpose of this item is to consider revisions/improvements to the programs in order to 1) benefit participants more and 2) foster ecosystem growth.
These are the notes from the Partner call of 4/19/18.
There are several communication channels in the CiviCRM community. The community needs to look at how each channel is used. Some guidelines on use of communication channels to make sure community members know where ot find up to date information and communicate in the proper channel.
I can lead a conversation about this....
When is CiviCRM the best fit, when is it not the best fit - why this is important
This is potentially a large topic that has been raised often either on partner calls or referenced in other discussions (like dev/core#97). The purpose of this issue is to improve the "process" of managing the product. That could be defined as better PR review, more visibility on upcoming releases (what's in them and why), etc.
Maybe we can use (elements of) Sociocracy 3.0 as a model for governance of the civicrm ecosystem.
Sociocracy 3.0 is an open source and flexible set of guidelines/best practices to enable practical collaboration.
Here are just a few concepts, check the links at the end of this issue for more information.
All patterns are based on 7 principles:
Teams are called circles, and within a circle you can have a role. Each circle selects one or more members as representative(s) to a delegate circle (i.e. a steering committee). People can wear many hats.
A driver is what motivates a circle to do or change something.
Within a circle, decisions are made based on the principle of consent: every member of the circle is asked if he has an objection against a proposed idea. If there are no objections, and the idea is "good enough for now, safe enough to try", a team is formed, evaluation criteria are set, a review date is fixed, and the plan is executed.
A domain is a distinct area of influence, activity and decision making within an organization. Domains are delegated to people, who take accountability for the domain, within its defined constraints on influence and autonomy.
All individuals and groups are accountable for their work, ongoing learning and development, with the organization providing necessary support.
To facilitate flow of information and influence between groups, there is a Double Linking pattern: two interdependent groups each select one of their members to represent their interests in the governance decisions of the other group.
etc.
Here's the full guide: https://sociocracy30.org/_res/practical-guide/S3-practical-guide-ebook.pdf But maybe it's easier to start with a few videos:
Do you think Sociocracy 3.0 is good enough for now, safe enough to try within our CiviCRM community?
This workshop complements #9, which is more high level, less technical.
It would talk about:
... from the perspective of testers and mergers.
It would discuss recent changes in process, tools, and discuss potential steps forward.
We can discuss a few use-cases of people participating in RC testing, and discuss how to improve the experience.
Hands-on workshop on how to write a phpunit test.
Depending on the interests, it might be a 1h presentation or a half-day session.
We can also discuss on next steps to improve the overall testing framework.
The security working group works quietly behind the scenes, making sure that security issues reported are triaged and fixed timely.
Presentation on how to develop a CiviCRM extension.
A first spec/prototype was created during CiviCamp Calgary 2018 sprint (marketing/civicamp-calgary#5). Where is it at now, what are the next steps? Hands on workshop.
CiviCRM docs are awesome. Presentation on recent improvements, and what's next?
CiviCRM Spark was soft-launched in April 2018. It has the potential to change user expectations and offer new possibilities.
Presented by: @bgm