Pragmatic Principles
The larger vision of "The Sakai Foundation" (a term I'll continue to use here for brevity's sake to refer to any extra-institutional organization devoted to the central governance of the project) and "community source" I take to be largely non-controversial among SEPP members. For that reason - and the fact that these aims are better stated elsewhere - I'll mostly confine my remarks to the support of more particular matters that have been raised in DG discussions to date.
The crucial governance issue at this stage of the project is to achieve some consensus on practical measures for scaling the community source process beyond the founding core partners, and doing so with the greatest promise of sustainability despite uncertain resources. The focus in these discussions should therefore be the articulation of a workable structure and process for community source, however much the conversation may appeal to guiding ideals. In shaping this structure I take the following pragmatic aims to be primary:
- A structure which maximizes independence and control for the local institution without compromising a requisite coherence and consistency for inter-institutional collaboration.
- A process which navigates between the occasionally competing demands of stability and consistency on the one hand and innovation and diversity on the other.
- A structure which can harness all the various modes of contribution from the various constituencies: institutions, commercial affiliates, and individuals (affiliated or otherwise).
- A lightweight board and minimal number of extra-institutional staff for long-term sustainability.
Two Spheres of Development
A balance between stability and innovation seems to me best struck by the Sakai Foundation retaining tight control over the framework and common services while at the same time loosening the reins on the tool development layer. It is at the tool layer where the potential for niche development is richest, and where creativity can be most greatly encouraged without undermining the coherence and functionality of the rest of the Sakai system.
That said, this should not be taken as an argument for anarchistic or shoddy tool development. The focus of the Sakai Foundation in the tool development arena should be oriented around guidance, and it should be two-fold:
- The shaping of clear and well-defined standards (e.g. the TPP and Style Guides).
- A structured Apache-style incubation process for cultivating tools or services that both meet these standards and are consistent with other Sakai tools and services.
Three Spheres of Membership
I'm of the opinion that a structure which focuses on institutions alone as members will prove to be inadequate, and will fail to make the most of its community. While it's true that the primary stakeholders are the member institutions, it's also true that the primary engine for development is the collaborative effort of individuals.
The realms of individual and institutional governance seem to me largely separable as far as the Sakai Foundation is concerned. Institutional representatives have their voice in overall guidance of the project (e.g. board elections or other board-level decisions) while individuals should carry the day in the arena of the DGs and tool and content development. Institutional affiliation will always have a strong influence on individual efforts in tool and content development (particularly in the way of requirements), but this influence will nevertheless be indirect. Institutions are free to coordinate the efforts of their staff, yet this is not something that the Sakai Foundation needs to take into account. At the same time, meritorious individuals should be able to retain their place and role in the Sakai community if their institutional affiliation changes, and the Sakai Foundation need not take this affiliation (or lack of it) into account.
There should therefore be some mechanism for recognizing and retaining individual merit and contribution independently of the question of institutional affiliation. Such a mechanism should be represented by some formalization of individual status, where greater responsibility accrues to those individuals who have demonstrated their merit. This may be achieved by a peer nomination and voting process, and responsibilities may include such things as serving on a project management committee or mentoring a project as part of the incubation process.
On the flip side, I feel that individual members need not have a vote in board elections. Board-level matters may remain the exclusive purview of institutional representatives.
Commercial affiliates stand in somewhat murkier territory, but on the question of governance they should stand in relation to the project much as do the member institutions, with the exception that the terms of their affiliation (e.g. fees) may be set differently per the board's discretion.
Flavors of Individuals
Developers will play a central role in the volunteer effort of the Sakai Foundation, but the nature of the Sakai software demands that the contributing community extend further. The Foundation should be active in encouraging and promoting the contributions of content developers, instructional designers, etc. Setting aside different categories of membership based on these distinctions may be an unnecessary complication, but there should still be seats of responsibility in these areas which are comparable to the committers, project leads, etc. of other developer-centered open source projects.
Persistent Sakai Foundation Staff
Staff on the Sakai Foundation payroll should be kept to a minimum, with institutional commitments of staff time being recruited wherever possible. The Sakai Foundation should however provide clear and consistent technical leadership and community coordination, and this is best achieved through persistent, salaried staff positions. I take positions in the following areas to be the bare minimum:
- Lead Architect
- QA/Release manager
- UI Design Lead
- Product Lead
- Community Communications manager
Provisional Planning
I think it's also worth emphasizing that any details now agreed upon should be provisional and frequently re-examined. The project is novel enough that we need to be open to revision as we feel our way forward. For similar reasons, I think it not terribly useful at this stage to try to settle our aim on too many definite, long-term targets. We are making decisions in the midst of many uncertainties, and our planning needs to be accordingly modest.