Joomla elections are coming up, (for details on the process see my last election post, A Call to the Joomla Community to Actively Participate in 2018 Elections), and it’s time to recommend my nominations, encourage new nominations, and grow the community.
Full stop. Two feet on the brakes, screeching to a halt!
I missed something over the last month, and probably most people did given the holiday season, the Board of Open Source Matters (aka the Joomla Board), has without fanfare, passed a motion that actively discourages and (I assume) penalizes in certain circumstances the open speech of anyone actively engaged in the political process of the board.
Closing Open Source
The motion proposed by the president (no twitter link available) and passed with unanimous consent reads as follow:
#2018/098 – In cases where a nomination is purely through a third party without the nominee putting themselves forward, to allow for nominees to decide whether to accept or decline a nomination in private, nominations to be kept between the person nominating, nominee and Secretary until acceptance has been given of the nomination by the nominee.
You can find the motion and rationale, among many other interesting notes, in the board minutes of December 13, 2018 (published December 20, 2018), please read the full minutes. With regards to motion #2018/098, let’s take a look what has driven this extreme response:
Statement from the President
I am hugely disappointed at the lack of commitment shown by some current board members. With the coming elections I feel it necessary to remind the community of the duties of a board member, even in a department with only one core team. Before running for a position or accepting a nomination, I urge potential candidates to ensure that they can fulfil [sic] the commitment required including attending our bi-weekly board meetings and when unable to due to circumstances out with their control to provide a report in their minutes box in place of their attendance.
Furthermore, in the last election cycle a former Board Member took it upon themselves to publicly announce his nominations before nomination acceptance. In my opinion this put undue pressure on candidates to accept their nominations possibly against their best interests and ability to commit to the time necessary. This, again in my opinion, directly led to the election of a board member who was unable to commit to the role but felt publicly pressured to accept the nomination. The result was a board member who only attended one board meeting and to my knowledge never even contacted the team under them once.
Given the volunteer nature of this project I would like to propose a motion that nominations are kept between the person nominating, nominee and Secretary until acceptance has been given of the nomination by the nominee in cases where a nomination is purely through a third party without the nominee putting themselves forward.
We all face enough pressure in this environment as it is, additional pressure should never be piled onto someone in the public domain when it should be a solely personal decision to accept a role. That said I would welcome a move where those wishing to run for a role declare their interest in that role before the nomination cycle begins. The most regular feedback heard surrounding elections is that people are unsure who to nominate as they have no idea who would like the role in the first place.
There is so much to parse here—really too much; this is the stuff of politics that should be handled internally and professionally. But, since this is now public record and (maybe??) enforceable policy, the community needs to understand how leadership is restricting speech and transparency in the project.
Board of Directors Issues
Paragraph one is pretty straightforward,
I am hugely disappointed at the lack of commitment shown by some current board members. With the coming elections I feel it necessary to remind the community of the duties of a board member, even in a department with only one core team. Before running for a position or accepting a nomination, I urge potential candidates to ensure that they can fulfil [sic] the commitment required including attending our bi-weekly board meetings and when unable to due to circumstances out with [sic] their control to provide a report in their minutes box in place of their attendance.
To me, the subtext speaks louder than the statement itself. What this statement highlights very clearly is that the president has failed to manage board meetings and the board. If this is such a pressing matter, why wasn’t it addressed in real time? These issues, which have now boiled over into fodder for official motions, should have been addressed during the board’s term and raised by the president the moment it became apparent these issues were stifling production. Rather than tackling pain points head-on, the president has allowed issues to foment such that they need to be made public within weeks of nominations.
Stop Talking About, You Know, Nominating
Paragraph two is the genesis for this post:
Furthermore, in the last election cycle a former Board Member took it upon themselves to publicly announce his nominations before nomination acceptance. In my opinion this put undue pressure on candidates to accept their nominations possibly against their best interests and ability to commit to the time necessary. This, again in my opinion, directly led to the election of a board member who was unable to commit to the role but felt publicly pressured to accept the nomination. The result was a board member who only attended one board meeting and to my knowledge never even contacted the team under them once.
First things first: the former Board Member to whom the current president refers is me, former president of Joomla, Robert Jacobi. I believe this is a simple case of shifting blame. True leadership starts at the top, and true leaders lead by being of service, by setting an example in their own actions, and by confronting problems as proactive participants in the solution. Those who lack the ability to manage tend to have a more defensive response to such problems, which often results in overreaching mandates as a means to regain control. Unfortunately, this type of legislation limits the political process and can be the preemptive death knell to open source projects like Joomla. It’s the opposite of leadership.
It’s probably also worth noting that there is a documented process in the by-laws to remove members who do not perform their duties (Section 4.04. Removal as Members). I have not personally heard from this board member who felt “publicly pressured”, so can’t speak to what direct knowledge the president may have regarding this board member’s feelings. But it’s probably fair to say that the member was elected following the processes created.
Lack of Motion
Paragraph three is just preparation for the motion so we finally get to paragraph four:
We all face enough pressure in this environment as it is, additional pressure should never be piled onto someone in the public domain when it should be a solely personal decision to accept a role. That said I would welcome a move where those wishing to run for a role declare their interest in that role before the nomination cycle begins. The most regular feedback heard surrounding elections is that people are unsure who to nominate as they have no idea who would like the role in the first place.
This paragraph should send up red flags to board members, collaborators, and open source champions everywhere. It would appear the president is driving elections in a way that allows her to direct the conversation while limiting participation from those who disagree. My previous nominations invoked calls to experienced individuals who had earned leadership consideration for their outstanding community work or professional volunteer experience. They may or may not have been elected but there was motion and excitement.
My rationale behind my post was simple and well-meaning: volunteers should see that there are individuals who will advocate for them based on their merits and fitness for particular roles. Perhaps some of these people are hesitant and sitting on the fence because they doubt their ability to affect meaningful change. My objective was to spur excitement and to pave the way for these capable individuals to consider and accept the chance to be part of an amazing open source project, change people’s lives, and to fix the causes of a shrinking project and disaffection.