Itowns Governance evolution proposal by Oslandia - take 1

[vpicavet]

This is a proposal for a more open governance, which would better correspond to a community project, and the criteria for an open project of OpenSource foundations like OSGeo.

I kept as much as possible of the previous organization, but inverted the decision process to be bottom-up instead of top-down, while keeping a sponsor committee with an indirect but effective operational power, processing decisions on funding and resource allocations ( and an extra right to veto, as discussed earlier ).

Consider this a proposal that feeds the discussion, not necessarily a final text, as there are most probably items to be explained with more details.

[alavenant]

Thank you for this valuable initiative. We greatly appreciate the time you've invested in improving the project's governance structure. Your expertise in Open Source is highly valued, and your insights are always welcome.
We apologize for the delayed response. Now that we're actively engaged with this matter, we're committed to maintaining more timely and fluid communication moving forward.

We are largely in agreement with your suggestions, though we believe a few adjustments would enhance both governance efficiency and daily collaboration, particularly regarding the current team size. Once we are able to finalize these details together, we plan to update our governance structure accordingly.

Fusion of PSC / PC

Past experiences in the itowns project have shown that limiting communication to developers can be detrimental. The current Project Committee (PC) and Project Steering Committee (PSC) structure provides an effective framework to address these concerns and support project growth. However, the project is currently in a critical growth phase where we believe a focused, compact leadership team is essential. We think this team should integrate both technical leadership (core developers) and strategic oversight (sponsors' representatives). Therefore, we suggest merging the Project Steering Committee (PSC) and PC committees, combining selected core contributors with PC members. A separation in two committes can still be re-evaluated once the team grows.

Furthermore, we think we should grant this merged committee a veto power, as currently outlined in the Steering Committee roles. While this power should be exercised judiciously, we believe it's crucial for maintaining clear direction and strong leadership during this critical phase of development.

Contribute with funds

o Your proposal : “Contribute an amount equivalent of a full-time annual commitment for one year to the project ( funding or resources ) ”
o We support the proposal to enable financial contributions from sponsors, which aligns with our objectives for the coming years. However, before we can incorporate this into our governance structure, we need to establish the appropriate legal framework, specifically by creating a dedicated legal entity for the project. If you are willing to take the initiative in establishing a foundation or other suitable organizational structure to facilitate funding contributions, we would welcome your leadership in this matter.