Draft - This is a draft document with the intention of starting a conversation on how the UCLP wishes to structure membership.

Initial considerations - BodhiZazen

BodhiZazen - As a starting point there seem to be two general themes.

1. General Membership.
2. Roles / Responsibilities / Sub-goups .

I STRONGLY SUGGEST we track the team membership on Launchpad.

In general I believe members should renew membership annually (Launchpad will track this).

• Membership renewals are done by the users themselves

Considerations - Martin Owens

1. User, Creative, Services and Administrative Rolls with differing group dynamics.
2. User rolls to be all inclusive, not moderated group, but will have 1 year renew
   1. User rolls to include generic teachers group, to have a mailing list.
   2. A student group for each section, each group to have a mailing list.
3. Creative group to be a moderated group, encourage most content to be posted to launchpad bzr code bases for management and tracking of progress.
   1. Creative group to start out as one group, possible to sub divide into creator skills (graphics/video) but not required for right now.
4. Services rolls to be supporters, online irc teachers, BT members etc, those who deploy the courses within the Ubuntu community (rather than the generic teachers group who could deploy it outside) For now I recommend just keeping this as a sub group of teachers and using the same mailing list.
5. Administrative groups, this includes leadership is via election only, invite only groups.
   1. Leadership: 5x councillors (2 year terms)
   2. Technical: 2x website technical administrators (1 year terms)
   3. Editorial: 1x Head of each section organiser/editor who will manage the published content and make editorial decisions. Someone who can take charge and move each section forwards in the best ways.

Thoughts?

General Membership

The consensus seems to be that we wish this team to be as open as possible.

Do we want the team to be open, moderated, or restricted ? On Launchpad we have 3 options :

• 'Moderated' means all subscriptions must be approved.
  'Open' means any user can join without approval.
  'Restricted' means new members can be added only by a team administrator.

Of these options, I suggest Moderated . This means people can request to join the team and we can approve them after we know who they are and how they wish to interact with the team. This can be as simple as offer advice / suggestions to as active as people wish to be with the team.

Potential criteria for general membership may also include :

• Meet & greet - We should at least know who they are and what their interest is with the team.

• Sign the CoC (to be tracked on Launchpad) ?

• Additional suggestions anyone ?
• Approval of new members by current members ? Admins ? At team meetings ? By simple majority vote ?

Roles

There are a number of opportunities for deeper involvement with the project. Potential categories might include (For now I will make only general suggestions):

• Content contributors - People who develop and generate the actual content.
• Teachers - People who actually teach, guide, or monitor "students" through the various courses. This may include leaders of IRC sessions in #ubuntu-classroom.
• Administration - The actual site administrators.

My suggestion would be to first solidify these various roles and identify people willing to commit time and effort to them. I suggest that these then become sub-groups of the UCLP (UCLP - Admin for example) on Launchpad. It seems to make sense to make these groups Restricted.

In all likely hood, when the rubber hits the pavement, and it is time to accomplish "work", it is likely this second group will be the ones to either motivate others or accomplish the tasks themselves.

Potential criteria for membership to these groups:

• Should we ask people to commit to an amount of time ? 2 hours / week ? more ? less ?

• Sign the Leadership CoC ?

• Demonstrate the quality of their work. Should we ask for references or samples of their work ?

Moderation

We should consider how we wish to moderate members. If there are conflicts between team members or if team members violate the CoC, how will we handle this ?

In general I would expect members to resolve conflict themselves, without external intervention. I suggest we consider how to proceed of members can not resolve differences themselves and thus require a 3rd part to facilitate the discussion.

If there is a violation of the CoC, we need a process to moderate. ?

Appeals - If a member does not agree with moderation, where do they go internal to the team ? External ?

Elections

How will we select our leaders ? How long do they serve ?

I believe 2 year terms are fairly standard.

Does this apply only to Admins ? Do we change the entire leadership structure at once, or do we keep some for continuity ?

Meeting 7.27.2009

There was general agreement to:

General Membership

1. It is the intention to make general membership as inclusive as possible. The membership process is intended is to assist new members to integrate into the team and become actively involved (as opposed to getting lost or idling).
2. Use LP to track membership, initial terms to be renewed annually , possibly moving to 2 years as the team matures.
3. The general preference seems to be a moderated team for general membership and restricted for other roles.
4. Requirements for General Membership :
   • Introduce yourself to the team and give us an idea of your interests, skills, and how you see yourself working with the team.
   • Introductions can happen via mailing list, IRC, or on the (Ubuntu) forums.
   • Signed Code of Conduct on Launchpad.
5. The approval process for general membership was deferred.

Roles

1. In general these sub-teams will use wiki pages and not LP team or sub-teams.
2. Leaders should sign the Leadership CoC once a tracking system becomes available in Launchpad.
3. We would like to consider a minimal time commitment.

Moderation

1. In general we ask members to make every attempt to resolve these differences between themselves.
2. The next step would to bring your concerns to the attention of a council member.
3. If the conflict can not be resolved by a single council member, bring it to the full council.
4. If it can not be resolved by the council, or you do not agree with the council decision, the next step would be to bring the issue to the Community Council.

Elections

The discussion was mostly deferred as for now as leadership is in place. In general 2 year terms were suggested.