# Implementing the Governance Structure - Suggestions for Working Groups? **URL:** \ **Category:** Community\ **Tags:** governance, discussion, community\ **Created:** [October 16, 2019, 8:51am UTC](https://forum.mautic.org/t/implementing-the-governance-structure-suggestions-for-working-groups/11398 "2019-10-16T08:51:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![silavapi](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.mautic.org/silavapi/32/7424_2.png) [@silavapi](https://forum.mautic.org/u/silavapi)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2019, 8:51am UTC](https://forum.mautic.org/t/implementing-the-governance-structure-suggestions-for-working-groups/11398/1 "2019-10-16T08:51:48Z")
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](https://www.mautic.org/blog/community/join-us-in-a-mautic-community-summit-at-contribution-day-2019/) 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](http://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](http://mautic.org) and the migration to a Drupal-based site_ **Events Team** - **MautiCon WG** _Brief: To organise the first MautiCon event in 2020_ - **Outreach WG** _Brief: To identify and plan opportunities to represent the Mautic community and raise awareness of the Open Source project_ **Legal & Finance Team** - **Finance WG** _Brief: To manage any financial matters relating to the Open Source community_ - **Trademark WG** _Brief: To work with Acquia’s trademark team to safeguard the Mautic brand_ ---
**Author:** ![npracht](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.mautic.org/npracht/32/240_2.png) [@npracht](https://forum.mautic.org/u/npracht)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2019, 8:39am UTC](https://forum.mautic.org/t/implementing-the-governance-structure-suggestions-for-working-groups/11398/2 "2019-10-18T08:39:59Z")
Hi @silavapi ! 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. ---
**Author:** ![silavapi](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.mautic.org/silavapi/32/7424_2.png) [@silavapi](https://forum.mautic.org/u/silavapi)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2019, 9:06am UTC](https://forum.mautic.org/t/implementing-the-governance-structure-suggestions-for-working-groups/11398/3 "2019-10-18T09:06:06Z")
> [@npracht](#): > > To make it simpler, I’d split the content of Community into 2 other groups: > > - `MautiCamps` in Events > - `Formus` & `Websites` to Marketing 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? > [@npracht](#): > > Also in the marketing group, I’d add a **WG** called `Product` that would take care of communication between Product Team and marketing. 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. > [@npracht](#): > > how do you image the collaboration? I believe we’d need one **leader** or **coordinator** for a certain timeframe I believe this was covered in the proposal and the responses when it comes to team leaders: > **[Response to Community Consultation on the Governance Model Proposal](https://www.mautic.org/blog/press/response-to-community-consultation-on-the-governance-model-proposal)** > > A response to the first community consultation on the Mautic Community Governance Model Proposal 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.