The first step toward implementing the governance structure is to propose the working groups that we would like to set up initially.
I had a rough idea sketched out below with a brief statement about what they might do, largely based on areas where we need to focus and improve processes - what do you think? Too many? Not enough? Something important missing?
Please share your thoughts below (and, if you’re interested in being involved in any of these areas, feel free to indicate that!)
Product Team
-
Release WG (already informally exists)
Brief: To manage releases of Mautic’s Open Source product
-
Security WG (already informally exists)
Brief: To deal with any security issues that arise with Mautic’s Open Source product and official plugins
-
Mautic 3 WG (the project kicking off at the Community Summit to manage the Symfony migration)
Brief: To manage the upgrade of the Symfony framework
Marketing Team
-
Newsletter WG
Brief: To prepare and send a monthly newsletter to the Mautic Open Source community highlighting recent activity, news, and showcasing events around the world
-
Community Blog WG
Brief: To manage an editorial process for the Mautic Community Blog at mautic.org/blog
Community Team
-
MautiCamps WG
Brief: To support MautiCamp organisers around the world with getting started, organising events, promoting events and driving engagement
-
Forums WG (informally exists in the form of moderators)
Brief: To manage the Mautic Community Forums
-
Websites WG
Brief: To manage the Mautic Community website mautic.org and the migration to a Drupal-based site
Events Team
Legal & Finance Team
Hi @rcheesley !
Excellent. To make it simpler, I’d split the content of Community into 2 other groups:
-
MautiCamps in Events
-
Formus & Websites to Marketing
Also in the marketing group, I’d add a WG called Product that would take care of communication between Product Team and marketing. For instance this WG would publish the release note on the blog, would take care of creating the user documentation (often missed by the development team).
Beside that, for each group, how do you image the collaboration? I believe we’d need one leader or coordinator for a certain timeframe that would lead the team to be sure the objectives and tasks are done. So, not the one who decide, but the one who has the responsibility to make things moving, organizing meetings and reporting.
Good suggestions - so maybe we just have a Community WG that takes care of general community stuff and the others are under different teams as you suggested?
I think this would work better by having liaisons from the Product team in the Marketing team and/or vice versa?
That’s how it had worked in other communities I’ve been a part of, and it removes the need for a separate group while fostering collaboration - what do you think?
While we’re pretty thin on the ground, I think we need to keep the number of groups small so we don’t over-stretch ourselves initially. We could always break out a separate group if there’s a need for it.
I believe this was covered in the proposal and the responses when it comes to team leaders:
So initially we would follow the terms outlines there:
Product: Assistant 6 months; Lead 12 months
Marketing: Assistant 6 months; Lead 12 months
Community: Assistant 12 months; Lead 18 months
Events: Assistant 12 months; Lead 18 months
Legal & Finance: Assistant 18 months; Lead 24 months
This would mean that we don’t have leaders stepping down all at the same time, and allows us to plan forward for elections etc.
I think the working groups need to somehow align with this, as you need to have the WG leads/assistant leads in place, in order to determine team leads.
So how about we aim to have the working groups and leads established by November? Maybe we have a 12 month term for WG leads from the start? What do you think might work?
The main thing I think is to provide some continuity, at least for the start, so people can really jump in and get going with the role, take responsibility and get things moving.