A possible Agenda for the governance summit
Tuesday 8:30 - 8:45am - Welcome, Coffee and Ground Rules
Tuesday 8:45 - 9:00am - Establish process for Governance Summit
At the Summit I expect we'll dig deep into Issues, listen carefully to and respect all positions/point of views, brainstorm about possible solutions, and document/detail.
Specific item to be discussed: is the Summit expected to produce:
- a) Issue documentation/detail + detail possible solutions
- b) or a + include recommendation/proposal
- c) or b + include decision made
@eileen wrote up here concerns about c) here: https://lab.civicrm.org/community/governance-summit-dev-camp/issues/4
Tuesday 9:00 - 9:30am - Summary/Presentation of the Current Situation
Perhaps Josh can summarize the Roles and Responsibilities that the Core Team currently takes on - and share the Finances available to to the Core Team at the moment - big picture style - something like:
We have funding for 1.5 staff members
From that we fund (Example Numbers):
- mentoring & chat support .15 person
- partner liaison .25 person
- development .2 person
- code review .2 person
- sprint attendance .1 person
- test infrastructure mtc .2 person
- release management .1 person
- administrative support .2 person
- wider community comms .1 person
Tuesday 9:30 - 12:00am - Roles, Responsibilities and Expectations
What do Partners expect from the Core Team? What does the Core Team expect from the Partners? We often hear 'Core Team should do this/that' - and 'Partners should do this/that' and I think it's clearly an underlying source of friction (not meeting each other's expectations).
@ErikHommel referenced this in his write up: https://lab.civicrm.org/community/governance-summit-dev-camp/issues/40 - specifically his 1) @eileen referenced this in her write up: https://lab.civicrm.org/community/governance-summit-dev-camp/issues/32 and @cividesk - reiterated that when expectations are not aligned it "causes frustration on both sides. Coming out of this discussion (Summit) with a clear, agreed-upon and written 'charter'
I think we get the big pieces of poster paper out and let the Partners discuss and list their own top 5 roles & what they think the top 5 roles of the Core team are (or should/could be). And then we compare that to what the Core Team lists for these exact same questions: what does the Core Team list of their own top 5 roles & what they think the top 5 roles of the Partners are (or should/could be).
And to work together to try close that gap -> to come up with a provisionally agreed upon [b) recommendation/proposal] list of Roles for both Core Team and Partners.
Tuesday 13:00 - 16:00am (must include a coffee break) - Core Team Finances/Sustainability
What is required to fulfill the (possibly b: recommended/proposed) Roles and resulting Expectations? Does this possibly mean we need to go back and revise the roles recommended/proposed under 2)?
@ErikHommel referenced the funding vs expectations issue in his https://lab.civicrm.org/community/governance-summit-dev-camp/issues/40 - specifically his 4);
@eileen also expressed her concerns that Funding currently does not meet Expectations in her: https://lab.civicrm.org/community/governance-summit-dev-camp/issues/32
Wednesday 9:00 - 12:00am - Core Team Decision Making
What is the Role Partners should / could / should not play in Core Team Decision making? re: Community management, Product Management, other areas. Is a structure like a PAC (Partner Advisory Council - seating 6-8 Partner representatives) helpful to streamline Partner communications with the Core Team? That's just one idea - I'm sure there are many more when we put our heads together in person.