What went on behind the scenes of the initial selection process?
All is described here. Read on.
Who selected the product council?
A subcommittee of the board, led by Lois Brooks, and including Jutta Treviranus, Josh Baron, Joseph Hardin and Michael Korcuska undertook two activities. First, the subcommittee defined the selection process, council structure and membership renewal process. Members of the board who were nominated for the product council were offered the opportunity to give comment, but were recused from voting on the processes we defined. Second, the subcommittee reviewed all nominations, selecting a slate of candidates. The slate was passed to the full board for comment, but again, members who were nominated, whether selected or not, were recused from voting. The full board did not see all the names of the nominees; this information was restricted to the subcommittee.
Why did you choose the people you chose?
We received quite a long list of nominations with many well-qualified colleagues from the community, more than could be seated on the council. Hence, the selection process necessitated that we pass over individuals who would make fine council members. These decisions, some of which which were quite difficult, were ultimately made with the overall balance of the council in mind. This slate was selected certainly because of individual qualities, but also with a goal to form the council with as much expertise amongst the members as possible, and to find breadth and balance of institutions, perspectives, and experience.
Should board members also be on the product council?
The Sakai Foundation board is responsible for legal and fiduciary activities, and business viability of the Foundation. The Sakai board does not directly intervene in product decisions, nor does it undertake product decisions as part of the board's agenda. This is purposeful for several reasons. First, as a community source project, product directions are ultimately the domain of the community. The board's role is to assure resources and coordination, but not to direct the details of the product. Second, skills needed to assure an excellent product are not necessarily the same ones needed to govern a Foundation. There is certainly some overlap in necessary expertise between the board and council, and there is some different expertise as well.
Because the board is ultimately responsible for the viability of the Foundation, it has ultimate responsibility for the success of the council. The council process establishes that the council activity will be reported to the board twice yearly. The Executive Director will act as interface between the board and the council.
That said, the board members are active in the community as individuals, and most rely on Sakai at their home institutions. Several are quite active in product development, either as leaders or regular contributors, so it's natural that some were nominated for the product council. The board subcommittee is sensitive to the question of board/council overlap. We decided that it was fine to have some overlap because of individual expertise, but that board officers (chair and vice-chair) could not be on the council. The chair sets the board agendas and has managerial oversight of the Foundation staff, and the vice-chair has this responsibility in the chair's absence. Hence, limiting board officers from serving on the council creates an arm's length relationship that will allow the council to proceed without micromanagement from the board.
John Norman, who has chaired the Sakai Foundation board for the past several years, will step down from his Board Chair role to take a seat on the council. He remains as a member of the Sakai board until his term expires. Per the by-laws, the board will vote for a new chair.
As part of determining the long term policies for the product council, the board will consider whether individuals should be allowed to serve on both the board and the product council.
Why are the council appointments tied to the 2.7 release?
We would like to revise the council and process in about a year's time. Given the council's role with product definition and release, it would be detrimental to set a date review/revise timeline that might disrupt this work. We also would like to see how the process works through an entire release cycle. Hence, it makes more sense to review the council success and composition in cycle with product releases rather than hard dates. Since 2.7 will release in about a year, the timing works.