Governance Part II
- Former user (Deleted)
The Governance debate is back!
A Paper has been posted as an attachment on the Strategy and Advocacy Home page to kick of a renewed drive towards a consensus on Governance for the Sakai enterprise.
Here is a proposal relating to process:
Who needs to be engaged in the debate:
Some possibilities
- institutions that have adopted Sakai as the main campus CLE and are prepared to commit effort to developing and sustaining Sakai
- institutions that pay $10,000 and make a credible commitment to deploy AND to commit effort to developing and sustaining Sakai
- current SEPP members and core institutions
Other contributions will be welcome, but those seeking to draft a consensus document should identify and place particular weight on contributions from these players.
Due diligence to confirm that the people purporting to represent these institutions have the authority to speak for the institution and enter into such commitments on behalf of the institution.
Why these players and not others:
The initial suggestions (1 & 2) relate to the players who are making a substantial commitment in resource and reputation to adopting and developing Sakai and therefore have the most at stake in Sakai's success
What needs to be covered in the debate:
- Who is the Sakai community and who is it for
- The 'constitution' or community rules. What is appropriate here will be heavily influenced by the considerations who the Sakai community is and what it is for as well as the role of the Board. The 'rules' should be considered in isolation.
- The scope of the proposed Board's responsibilities. Whether the Board is expected to control the software development, or simply 'cheerlead' the project and take care of some housekeeping like running the Conference. The broader the scope of the Board's responsibilities, the greater the importance of transparency and accountability.