[Osia-members] On the future of OSIA (again)

[Jack Burton]

On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 16:27 +1100, Brendan Scott wrote: 
> *** Purpose of OSIA
> The purposes of OSIA are set out in section 66 of its constitution. The
> first paragraph reads:
> 
> "the promotion of awareness of the existence and utility of free and
> open source software, and of its associated licensing terms and the
> demonstration, through case studies, market research, information
> gathering, and other methodologies, of the specific benefits of the use
> of free and open source software;"

Thanks Brendan.

Interesting that that came up.

At the 2016 (Sydney) AGM, we discussed a potential need to amend Clause
66, with a view to bringing it more into line with the outcomes of the
2014/15 VPM project -- "amplifying the voice..." with a focus on public
policy matters -- under which we'd had our greatest successes in recent
years (admittedly, not as great as some of those in the early years
under your leadership Brendan, but certainly far exceeding anything
since then).

I'm not suggesting we actually do that now -- amending the constitution
while the company is facing an existential crisis would be rather like
shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic -- but I do believe it's still
worth bearing in mind the intent behind that discussion.

Also worth mentioning that that focus is not necessarily such a new
idea. Although, unlike Brendan, I was *not* a founder, my understanding
was that one of the principal drivers behind OSIA's establishment was
to counter the threat posed at the time to the .au FOSS industry by
AUSFTA (too late by then to stop it altogether, but history showed that
Brendan's efforts at OSIA were effective in reducing the extent of the
damage done by the implementing legislation). There are significant
parallels between the threat posed by AUSFTA back then and the threat
posed by a potential resurrected TPP now, for example.

> What the organisation pursues in practice is determined by who actually
> does things.

Couldn't agree more.

Whilst I think there's genuine value in us, as members, debating OSIA's
future direction publicly, at the end of the day what actually gets
done will be up to the new board -- the prototypical "do-ocracy".

> When we originally set up the organisation I believed that individual
> members would play an active role. However, in practice, it has been
> the directors who have been those taking action, while members have
> been largely passive. There are probably a lot of reasons for this. I'm
> not sure any of them are relevant.

Yes, in many ways those reasons are not relevant -- I agree that it's
not worth wasting time on debating "who did what wrong and when" for
example.

But I do think those reasons are relevant in another way -- looking to
the future, how can OSIA involve members (beyond just those represented
on the board) more intimately in the business of OSIA?

My suggestion of open sourcing OSIA's submission development process is
one such answer.

But no doubt there are many others too.

For example, back in the days when exhibiting at CeBIT still made
financial sense for OSIA, I recall that staffing the OSIA stand was
very much a collaborative effort undertaken by individual members,
under the leadership of Donna (starting at least a year or two *before*
she joined the board).

> What is relevant is that what OSIA does will be determined by who is
> on the board. It is for that reason that it is important for nominees
> to tell members what they're interested in pursuing. Then members, by
> choosing who they vote for, are also choosing what it is that OSIA will
> do in the coming year.

Again, couldn't agree more. That's one of the reasons the interim board
opted for the EoI / informal poll process this time. 

<...> 
> 
> *** Directors
> 
> You can also have different board members pursuing different things. In
> my view, the board should encourage individual directors, as well as
> members, to do things that the Board as a whole does not object to, but
> doesn't itself want to focus on.  Having committee structures is an
> entirely normal way for associations to organise.

Agreed.

Long-standing members will recall that I spoke at length in favour of
establishing committees, as well as joint working groups with kindred
organisations, during a similar thread on the old discuss@ list in late
2010.

I stand by those comments, for the OSIA of 2010/11. But fast forward to
2018 and the nature of the beast has changed -- we now have far fewer
financial members, but far more other interested parties subscribed to
this list.

If OSIA can grow again to the size it was at its height (about a decade
ago), a structure of formal committees & JWGs may well make sense
again.

But in the meantime (and perhaps even thereafter), I suspect that we'd
have more success by adopting the open source development model for
much of what OSIA does.

I've suggested a way to do that in one of the most obvious areas
(drafting submissions), but there are no doubt also ways that the OSDM
could be applied to other tasks that OSIA undertakes (or should
undertake) too.

> There is also nothing inherently wrong with having passive directors
> who are just interested in administering the organisation and/or taking
> part in decision making. However, as a matter of practice, a board full
> of passive directors will not be useful. The performance of management
> or communication functions should be recognised as valuable
> contributions.  As a general rule it's better to have a board member
> who contributes rarely than to not have them at all.

I'm in two minds about that.

What you say is true, for sure, in general terms. I can think of at
least three past directors (I won't name them here), who in various
years contributed *substantially* to OSIA's success during a small part
of the board term and did little beyond the bare minimum for the rest
of the term, usually due to varying work commitments at different times
of the year -- I agree that their contributions were still very
valuable to OSIA and that sort of thing should not be discouraged.

But then I can also think of at least two past directors (again I won't
name them here), who in various years contributed so little during the
term that their inaction actively *demotivated* some of their fellow
directors from contributing as they otherwise would have (e.g. one
*highly* capable individual actually said to me once "X [another then
current director] never bothers getting anything done on time or well,
so why should I?"). That sort of situation actively harms OSIA -- by
the same principle as in "broken window syndrome".

Accountability is important -- but at the same time it's also important
not to overload the people we have.

On the other hand I agree with you completely that "the performance of
management or communication functions should be recognised as valuable
contributions". There are a also number of other "background" tasks
that are absolutely essential to the functioning of OSIA, but are not
particularly visible to the members (unless they go horribly wrong).
Almost everything that the company secretary needs to do falls into
that category, as does maintaining OSIA's infrastructure -- both vital,
valuable contributions, even if not often seen as "sexy".

At the end of the day, as both you & I have said before, I think it
comes back to what those who seek to serve on the board want to do with
OSIA -- we the members should trust that what they say in their
platform statements is true; and we should expect them, once in office,
to deliver on those.

> I think it is unwise to limit the number of board positions.

Yes, if there are more EoIs lodged than casual vacancies, the SGM can
always decide to increase the maximum number of directors (currently
set at 8, since Dec 2010).

I agree with you in general terms, but within certain limits. For
example, some years ago I was chairman (at another organisation) of an
executive committee (effectively a board) with 23 members -- that was
probably the most challenging role I've ever had, and it didn't turn
out so well... For me at least, I know that 16 is pretty much my limit
-- although I acknowledge that a better chairman than me might be able
to do well with a larger board than that.

I would caution against reflexively setting the maximum number of
directors to match the number of candidates -- because doing so
effectively annuls the purpose of asking for platform statements.

However, I *would* support increasing the maximum number of directors
to match the number of candidates *endorsed* by the majority of members
in the informal poll, if that number turns out to be more (but not too
much more) than the current maximum.

If we end up with substantially more EoIs than that, that's a really
*good* problem to have -- as we would then have enough motivated
individuals to staff not only the board, but also various committees of
the type Brendan spoke of.

> As OSIA does not have enough income to hire staff, individuals who are
> thinking of working on the board should expect to be volunteering their
> own time to further the interests of the members.  There is no sugar
> coating that, although I think directors do benefit through the
> recognition they receive. I think board positions can assist younger
> participants in the sector to help grow their networks and would
> encourage them to nominate.

All very good points Brendan and well put.

I'll add though that *if* a director's employer in his or her day job
is willing to *support* that director's contribution to OSIA, sometimes
it is possible for directors to do the work of OSIA on their own
company's time. Some of the directors we've had (especially those from
mid-sized or large members) have done that in the past.

But of course that's not a requirement -- the majority of OSIA
directors in the past have, as Brendan said, discharged their OSIA
duties on their own time.

Thanks again Brendan -- some great insights there.