scenarios

Added by Adrian Zimmermann about 4 years ago

Hey there
Thanks for providing the 3 scenarios! For which scenario the Board and the EAB stand for? Thats a very important thing for all of us who have to vote on that. I think we need to know which scenario the T3A leaders have the most passion in and will give their energy to.

Thanks


Replies (17)

RE: scenarios - Added by Carsten Falkenberg about 4 years ago

Hi,

I feel much the same way as Adrian does. I'd like to know from each member of the Board and EAB which scenario they prefer and which pros and cons they see for each scenario.

RE: scenarios - Added by Alain Veuve about 4 years ago

We discussed this yesterday if we want to give an official recommendation and decided not to do so. Just because we think it is really the members that need to decide. In this light a recommendation would bias the suggestions.

Apart from this I can tell that my personal perception was that there is a clear tendency towards Scenario 3. What should also be clear is that nobody wants to maintain status quo so Scenario 1 is not really an option for us. However, we it's only fair to give this scenario a choice as well.

I leave it up to the other members to disclose what their vote is going to be. I personally will vote for 3. For the moment there are no clear pros and cons other than the obvious, a detailed analysis is part of the preparation work. As with so many ventures its about risk and chances. Scenario 3 offers a lot of chances and the possibility to see tremendous momentum and motivation - as we would change a lot of things that comes with a fair amount of risk. Why do I personally would take the risk? Just simply because I think continuing like we did in the past years will be a dead end.

RE: scenarios - Added by Carsten Falkenberg about 4 years ago

Thanks for your answer, Alain.

Alain Veuve wrote:

We discussed this yesterday if we want to give an official recommendation and decided not to do so. Just because we think it is really the members that need to decide. In this light a recommendation would bias the suggestions.

If there is a clear tendency within the Board and EAB for a certain scenario, I think it's crucial to give a recommendation. That's what people expect of you (The Reason Why: Members expect the TYPO3 Association to act). Especially for the EAB, not giving a recommendation means that you are not doing your job. If the experts don't give advice, who else does?

RE: scenarios - Added by Alain Veuve about 4 years ago

Good you bring this up, because I guess there is a common misunderstanding. The T3A is NOT the Board, NOR the EAB BUT all the members. The General Assembly is the hightest force in the whole organization. The EAB and the Board are doing exactly what the members want. This is what our duty is and this is why we put that question up to you guys to vote on. This is why we have been talking to hunderts of people involved with TYPO3; to derive scenarios that are mostly covered the base of members. I am convinced the majority of all members can agree on one of the three scenarios. So if there is a vote for one scenario, then the majority of the members are backing this scenario. We think this is a prerequisit for put to live any scenario.

So by giving a recommendation of only a few members, we fear to bias that process.

What I can only recommend is that everyone makes up his/her mind for him/herself and thinks about which of the scenario would be best.

RE: scenarios - Added by Carsten Falkenberg about 4 years ago

Okay, I think I got your point. Correct me, if I'm all wrong.

The GA is the highest force within the T3A.
The Board and the EAB are running the show. With the blessing of the GA.

And here the misunderstanding starts.

The Board and EAB don't want to lead, they want to accompany the decisions the members made. No matter what decisions is made.

I made the mistake, that I assumed, you wanted to lead and therefor expected to get a recommendation from you.

Perhaps it's typical german, to expect to be lead by others, so they can hold them responsible, if the plan doesn't work out. :)

RE: scenarios - Added by Alain Veuve about 4 years ago

It would say that one needs to make a separation:

a) Fundemantal strategic changes like the ones suggested need a decision form the membership base, the members are the . This is one thing. This decision is somehow defining the lanes between which the "leadership" will act.

b) Leadership in day2day work does not need to ask the membership base.

RE: scenarios - Added by Ingmar Schlecht about 4 years ago

Hi Alain,

Alain Veuve wrote:

Apart from this I can tell that my personal perception was that there is a clear tendency towards Scenario 3.
What should also be clear is that nobody wants to maintain status quo so Scenario 1 is not really an option
for us. However, we it's only fair to give this scenario a choice as well.

So why, if you altogether decided not to give a recommendation, do you communicate that there seems to be a "clear tendency towards Scenario 3", and that "nobody wants to maintain status quo"?

In my understanding you decided not to communicate these things as you didn't want to bias the outcome - but in your very next sentence you do exactly the contrary and (implied in your sentence) let us know that: The majority was in favour of Scenario 3, some were in favour of Scenario 2, and no-one favoured Scenario 1. So that's it, right? All things communicated.

Although now it would of course be very interesting (truely,to make up my mind about the options) what points speak in favour of these scenarios from your point of view.

Cheers
Ingmar

RE: scenarios - Added by Alain Veuve about 4 years ago

Hi Ingmar

great to read you here!

The answer is simple: with giving an official statement as board or eab we would act in the name of the members. this is something we cannot in this case. What I wrote was my personal perception on what the guys opinion is. I did this just because there is a need for it obviously.

Regarding the points I will consider writing my opinion on this. I don't think this is the right place to do this.

Cheers
Alain

RE: scenarios - Added by Dan Untenzu about 4 years ago

Scenario 2
The assoication had to dismiss some fulltime workforces in the past. What did change or whas has to change so that this does not happen again?

Scenario 3
Are all full time roles selected by the strategic board and/or reviewed by the supervisory board? Which role will the CEO play in this structure?

The estimate almost urges for an investor. Is this the plan or „just“ a a possible option?

RE: scenarios - Added by Daniel Hinderink about 4 years ago

hi,

I have a few remarks about the proposal, since I was pointed to it.

1. It seems you have put a lot more energy into explaining #3 then #1 or #2. The bias is tangible, I feel. That is insofar a problem, as the members can only agree with you, on #3 if they hope to find motivated staff for implementing whatever they choose. If some other option get's that majority vote, I would worry that a number of you would walk out. I think that could be remedied by putting more work into all three, even keeping the status quo must have some advantages, otherwise the current budget doesn't make sense.

2. You analyze that demand for TYPO3 (CMS) is waning, but your investment is directed at the organization, instead of the product(s). So it seems you either don't believe the product(s) should be improved, or it is not the job of the TYPO3 Association to do that. The current budget which spends more money on administration (263.195 € or 38%) than R'n'D (239.195 € or 35%) is already not focussing on development, i.e improving the products. I have some severe doubts that structural changes and investment in the organization will lead to effects before 3-5 years from now and even then the effect is hard to predict.

3. I would like to see a fourth option focussing on product development. As a simple example: the current annual budget is 691.682,- €. Generally nonprofit organizations try to limit their administrative cost to less than 5%. Let's aim for an interim goal of 10% which would be 69.168 €. That leaves 311.257 € per product per year (I think Flow counts as a part of Neos).

4. Finally, I can not find a business model other than some hints in #3. I think to evaluate the viability of that proposal, the foundation would need to be a calculatory business model with annotated assumptions.

5. I think it would be advisable to have online voting place by the GA, since there will almost certainly not enough people present to decide on a change to the by-laws. Which is what will be necessary if a restructuring will then be recommended or planned for next year. That means an insignificant share of voters will decide on the restructuring budget to be spent that can only be put to effect if the majority agrees.

thanks,

Daniel

RE: scenarios - Added by Gina Steiner about 4 years ago

hi all.

i agree with daniel on all points.

in addition i think it would be vital to discuss (regarding #3)
1. on what is the connection to the teams is based?
2. how it is planned to be established?
this point seems to be vital to get it going.

regarding 1: a team needs a "reason" to follow a PO. what is the rational reason the team follows the PO? money? competence? prestige? merit? ...?
regarding 2: under what circumstances can a team follow an external PO/company? i mean emotionally... if the contact between PO/company and team can't be established, it does not work.

thanks
gina

RE: scenarios - Added by Jigal van Hemert about 4 years ago

Gina expressed it a bit better. If T3A becomes a company (scenario 3) and it employs a PO, architect, team leader, etcetera the product changes essentially from a community driven project into a company owned product. In short I called this an attempt to take over the community.

Furthermore there is a new dynamic introduced that some people of the team are hired by the association/company and others are expected to work for free. I know this is the case in other communities, but in those it started like that and the ones who donate their time were aware of that situation. For the TYPO3 CMS community it's kind of new. Some people get paid part time because their position requires a regular and substantial amount of time which they simply cannot afford without compensation.

Hiring key people in the team also means that these persons heavily depend on their employer. In that regard the TYPO3 company now determines the direction of the development; "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

IMO the association has a role to enable development, but the project has to remain a community driven project.

Note: not everyone in the community is a member of the T3A, so Community is not equal to T3A.

RE: scenarios - Added by Sven Ditz about 4 years ago

I would like to talk and discuss about the question, whether we have to vote between the options 1,2 or 3 ?

in my opinion none of the 3 options is optimally for a better future of TYPO3

our percentage expenditure on administration are already far too high.

in option number 3 there is an considerable higher income estimated without any clear explanation where the money will come from.

in none of the 3 options a strategy and / or business model is described.

i would like to talk about a option no. 4: with one main key feature:
saving a future for TYPO3 through an investment in the heart of the project:

to the continuing downward trend for years of TYPO3 to stop and become competitive again in the future we have to:
invest in the product
means to pay for code - OF COURSE, WHAT ELSE?
(writing this does feel a little bit like saying the name of ...
"he-who-must-not-be-named" - so maybe we can discuss about
the "Voldemort"-Option:
Paying for Code to have a chance to stay competitive

what else should stop the negative trend?
22 full payed people for everything
except the core.?
was a good strategy in the beginning
but in the past TYPO3 has been the first and the only
open source enterprise CMS

the world around us has changed dramatically since the beginning
"don´t pay for code" no longer works in a innovative, fast-paced and competitive environment.

the breakdown of revenue should be:
10% administration
45% CMS
45 % NEOS and flow

Let´s talk about... Voldemort

RE: scenarios - Added by Daniel Hinderink about 4 years ago

Looking at other, originally community-driven Open Source CMS's out there, almost all have created companies or non profit organizations.
TYPO3 was probably among the first, but those other examples have developed ways to collect and distribute money that are way more flexible in the mean time and decidedly aiming paying for code.

check out http://opensourcematters.org which also does a pretty good job with their friendly and clear website.

And of course:
https://assoc.drupal.org/blog/holly.ross.drupal/announcing-drupal-8-accelerate-program
http://buytaert.net/announcing-the-drupal-8-accelerate-fund

The core difference is, that the budget authority lies with the teams and the organization is simply administrating that in a flexible and sometimes motivating way. So they make it their job to grow the number of contributors and contributions.
To work like this, the t3a wouldn't need to change a thing, the EAB would just need to hand over the budgets and devise ways in which the billing works for the teams. There are many examples out there on how money can be spent on development in F/OSS communities.

Actually that was the idea how the EAB should have worked, but we had too much trust in the polls and our own conviction, that advancing long-term (code) development was the clear goal in everybody's mind. As the distribution of funds in the current budget, the future scenarios discussed here and all that trouble with the teams show, that has been taken in an entirely different direction. We should restore the natural order of giving back the power to the core teams, or we will have to accept the T3A will spend more and more money on itself, just because that is what organizations tend to do.

RE: scenarios - Added by Alain Veuve about 4 years ago

Thanks for sharing your questions, opionions and comments. I will take the opportunity to give some answers on certain questions that might help others reading through (as well as stating what is obviously not true)

Daniel Hinderink: 2. You analyze that demand for TYPO3 (CMS) is waning, but your investment is directed at the organization, instead of the product(s). So it seems you either don't believe the product(s) should be improved, or it is not the job of the TYPO3 Association to do that. The current budget which spends more money on administration (263.195 € or 38%) than R'n'D (239.195 € or 35%) is already not focussing on development, i.e improving the products. I have some severe doubts that structural changes and investment in the organization will lead to effects before 3-5 years from now and even then the effect is hard to predict.

The term administration as you bring it up is missleading as readers would pretend it's bookkeeping and writing letters only. This is not the case: The majority of this cost is for things like marketing, events, education etc. The T3A does at the moment does not pay money for code because of historic reasons. This is a strategic thing that is up for decision next week. If one reads the scenarios carefully she realizes that scenario 2 and even more no. 3 is putting product development and code in the center of activities. It's the main goal to have a permanent (day to day) full time contribution to the products with large teams, some of them paid some of them as volunteers. Correct is, that scenario 2 and 3 are investments into products and code. In order to do these investments at this scale, a structure needs to be in place.


4. Finally, I can not find a business model other than some hints in #3. I think to evaluate the viability of that proposal, the foundation would need to be a calculatory business model with annotated assumptions.

This is a general misunderstanding about what to vote next week: The members of the GA are voting for the planning and preparation of a change. A business model is just too much work to do at the moment.

5. I think it would be advisable to have online voting place by the GA, since there will almost certainly not enough people present to decide on a change to the by-laws. Which is what will be necessary if a restructuring will then be recommended or planned for next year. That means an insignificant share of voters will decide on the restructuring budget to be spent that can only be put to effect if the majority agrees.

This is indeed a valid point but online voting is not possible (from a legal standpoint) at them moment. The T3A checked for this last year. For the moment we are optimistic that a majority of all members will be present or delegated their vote correctly.

Gina Steiner:
in addition i think it would be vital to discuss (regarding #3)
1. on what is the connection to the teams is based?
2. how it is planned to be established?
this point seems to be vital to get it going.
regarding 1: a team needs a "reason" to follow a PO. what is the rational reason the team follows the PO? money? competence? prestige? merit? ...?
regarding 2: under what circumstances can a team follow an external PO/company? i mean emotionally... if the contact between PO/company and team can't be established, it does not work.

It's very obvious that only parts of the existing teams can be lead architects, POs etc. The very big advantage for these poeple is, that they can eventually work 100% for the beloved products and be paid a competetive salary. They can organize themselves, change the team themselves and finally decide what they do themselves. The only thing that obviously would change is, that they must ship if they announce and that they need to coordinate with other teams on communication for example. Although there have been some discussions already, it's not clear at the moment if all team members would be part of this. But I am pretty optimistic that we can find a good way that everyone is happy and in. This negotiations etc. are part of the prep phase we are voting on.

Jigal van Hemert: Gina expressed it a bit better. If T3A becomes a company (scenario 3) and it employs a PO, architect, team leader, etcetera the product changes essentially from a community driven project into a company owned product. In short I called this an attempt to take over the community.

Sounds like the voting next week is an act of conspiracy. I am not really familiar with your picture of what the TYPO3 universe/community is like. What I can say is that the past year was full of bottom up information flow on how the future of the T3A could look like. The results of this is the voting on scenarios. All three scenarios are feasable, all have pros and cons. What is underlying though is that most poeple think that a FOSS only approach will not be successful in the market anymore. However, it is totally clear that the TYPO3 Association will never be like Acquia or Magento. None of the scenarios do suggest that. What is correct is that the power is at the members, by getting more people into the T3A as members (by the wooden membership) we can start to live a true direct democracy that is able to vote on a lot of very down to earth things. Thats what I would call democratically community driven. The T3A only build the infrastructure to do this.

Sven Ditz: I would like to talk and discuss about the question, whether we have to vote between the options 1,2 or 3 ?

No, you don't, basically. Everyone is free to vote, to not vote or to come with another suggestion. There already are some and I hope there will be more.

In option number 3 there is an considerable higher income estimated without any clear explanation where the money will come from.

This is true and is indeed a key question. The one thing that we hear all the time from members is: "We spend more money easily, if you can guarantee that is spent in a good way and we get results (basically better dev and more marketing). In the prep I made a little calculation and it is feasable to rise substantially more money from the ecosystem. To get real financial committment is though part of the preparation phase.

to the continuing downward trend for years of TYPO3 to stop and become competitive again in the future we have to:
invest in the product
means to pay for code - OF COURSE, WHAT ELSE?
(writing this does feel a little bit like saying the name of ...
"he-who-must-not-be-named" - so maybe we can discuss about
the "Voldemort"-Option:
Paying for Code to have a chance to stay competitive

I know for some people this is feels very strange but I personally agree with you. In scenario 3 paying for codes is an underlying concept when it comes to product development. The Board and the EAB is totally open to discuss this. At the end the members must decide.

Daniel Hinderink: Looking at other, originally community-driven Open Source CMS's out there, almost all have created companies or non profit organizations.
TYPO3 was probably among the first, but those other examples have developed ways to collect and distribute money that are way more flexible in the mean time and decidedly aiming paying for code.
check out http://opensourcematters.org which also does a pretty good job with their friendly and clear website.
And of course:
https://assoc.drupal.org/blog/holly.ross.drupal/announcing-drupal-8-accelerate-program
http://buytaert.net/announcing-the-drupal-8-accelerate-fund
The core difference is, that the budget authority lies with the teams and the organization is simply administrating that in a flexible and sometimes motivating way. So they make it their job to grow the number of contributors and contributions.
To work like this, the t3a wouldn't need to change a thing, the EAB would just need to hand over the budgets and devise ways in which the billing works for the teams. There are many examples out there on how money can be spent on development in F/OSS communities.

I don't want to go into this too much, but saying clearly that this D8 accelerate fund thing is a marketing and community management stunt. Drupal/Acuia is not at all compareable to what TYPO3 is, organization and money-wise. They perfectly master the interplay of commercial interests vs community interests and it's just not true that the full budget authority lies with the teams. That is the case for some development fund(s), but throughout the entire budgets that go into the Drupal/Acquia ecosystem it is not at all the way they handle it.

RE: scenarios - Added by sander vogels about 4 years ago

Hi,

I 100% procent agree with Daniel Hinderink. Please focus on development of a more user-friendly CMS regarding the T3 CMS branche and a completed product for the NEOS Branche instead of focusing on the organization. Give the teams more budget to accomplish this.
A really good product will market itself. More developers will jump on the bandwagon when the product is popular with clients. More clients will start using the product when it's way better then what they use now.
I dare to bed money on it that if you would stop everything that costs money for one year and put all this budget into development, we would be way better off then al this reorganizational efforts.

Might you wanna change the way the community works, a much better start would be to start changing the culture. Somehow the community and T3A don't feel as energized, open and innovative as those of other systems. In T3 you see the same people in all kinds of functions for years and years. Their intentions might be very good as might be their work. But for keeping up with the 'zeitgeist' and staying innovative, young and dynamic, this doesn't help because your culture lacks the dynamics for this for this. You become like those old political parties that lost the dynamics for change and will share the same faith. Scenario 3 will for 80% have the same people so they will make the same decisions. You can read this in any textbook about successful social systems.

Scenario 3 might also prove being the perfect scenario for imploding TYPO3. It is focused on staying in power as T3A but who will invest 2 million without having the capability to influence where your investment will go?
Any investor that thinks that T3 CMS and NEOS codebase is so good that they are worthwhile investing 2 million in, would make a way smarter and better investment by forking the code and start his own CMS with it. Then you could have the model with an open source (community) version with open source (community) extensions mixed with a Business Edition with extra (paid) functions and extensions and enterprise level support. You lose everything and everyone you don't need or want and will have complete say about the direction the CMS is going: your own way.
My guess is that half a million would be sufficient to start that alternative. There a lots of OSS packages out there who started this way and this whole stupid move could be just the drop to make somebody do this.

My 50 cents,
Sander

RE: scenarios - Added by Daniel Hinderink about 4 years ago

Alain Veuve wrote:

Thanks for sharing your questions, opionions and comments. I will take the opportunity to give some answers on certain questions that might help others reading through (as well as stating what is obviously not true)

Daniel Hinderink: 2. You analyze that demand for TYPO3 (CMS) is waning, but your investment is directed at the organization, instead of the product(s). So it seems you either don't believe the product(s) should be improved, or it is not the job of the TYPO3 Association to do that. The current budget which spends more money on administration (263.195 € or 38%) than R'n'D (239.195 € or 35%) is already not focussing on development, i.e improving the products. I have some severe doubts that structural changes and investment in the organization will lead to effects before 3-5 years from now and even then the effect is hard to predict.

The term administration as you bring it up is missleading as readers would pretend it's bookkeeping and writing letters only. This is not the case: The majority of this cost is for things like marketing, events, education etc.

This is not correct. I attached the spreadsheet above, please check it. What is included in administrative cost is neither marketing, nor events (not counting the GA as an event here), nor education. Here are the different budgets under that umbrella copied from the spreadsheet:
6530 Expenses Accounting 8.000 €
6531 Expenses Lawyer 15.000 €
6533 Expenses Back Office (Formerly Board Assistance) 34.350 €
6535 Expenses General Meetings EAB+Board (QSA) 10.650 €
6536 Expenses EAB Expenses 8.000 €
6537 Expenses General Assembly 2015 14.595 €
6538 Expenses License Team 6.200 €
6542 Executive Secretary 89.155 €
6543 Realisation of new Membership System 50.000 €
6547 Membership in other organisations 5.600 €
6548 BCC Meeting and travel costs 1.600 €
4010 TYPO3 Server Team 19.922 €
3. Total Management 263.072 €

None of these are obligatory at all, or to this extent, with the exception of accounting cost (not sure about the legal council) and probably some server team expenses.

The T3A does at the moment does not pay money for code because of historic reasons. This is a strategic thing that is up for decision next week. If one reads the scenarios carefully she realizes that scenario 2 and even more no. 3 is putting product development and code in >the center of activities. It's the main goal to have a permanent (day to day) full time contribution to the products with large teams, some of them paid some of them as volunteers. Correct is, that scenario 2 and 3 are investments into products and code. In order to do these >investments at this scale, a structure needs to be in place.


4. Finally, I can not find a business model other than some hints in #3. I think to evaluate the viability of that proposal, the foundation would need to be a calculatory business model with annotated assumptions.

This is a general misunderstanding about what to vote next week: The members of the GA are voting for the planning and preparation of a change. A business model is just too much work to do at the moment.

A simple design of a business system and some basic assumptions must be part of a strategy discussion in this direction and there already was a budget allocated to this. For comparison: the last time this a restructring been done, the workshop and implementation came in at under 10.000 CHF, of which the vast majority (more than 8000 CHF) was spent on external consulting (BDO), legal council and transition to a new accounting system and standard.

Daniel Hinderink: Looking at other, originally community-driven Open Source CMS's out there, almost all have created companies or non profit organizations.
TYPO3 was probably among the first, but those other examples have developed ways to collect and distribute money that are way more flexible in the mean time and decidedly aiming paying for code.
check out http://opensourcematters.org which also does a pretty good job with their friendly and clear website.
And of course:
https://assoc.drupal.org/blog/holly.ross.drupal/announcing-drupal-8-accelerate-program
http://buytaert.net/announcing-the-drupal-8-accelerate-fund
The core difference is, that the budget authority lies with the teams and the organization is simply administrating that in a flexible and sometimes motivating way. So they make it their job to grow the number of contributors and contributions.
To work like this, the t3a wouldn't need to change a thing, the EAB would just need to hand over the budgets and devise ways in which the billing works for the teams. There are many examples out there on how money can be spent on development in F/OSS communities.

I don't want to go into this too much, but saying clearly that this D8 accelerate fund thing is a marketing and community management stunt. Drupal/Acuia is not at all compareable to what TYPO3 is, organization and money-wise.

I wasn't referring to Acquia but to the Drupal Associaton. The accelerate programme might be a stunt, but it is no fake. It does raise funds and pays for code, and it does so with very little preparatory work and certainly not a year-long phase of thinking about what to do.
I am not saying this is the way to go, but here is an example of actually doing something quickly and effectively, with minimum administrative overhead which focusses on product development.

Returning to the proposal I have a very hard time imagining that the money spent on re-thinking the organisation is better spent there then just investing it in development. By better I mean ROI for the whole ecosystem. Plus, it's another lost year, without even implementing any changes.

They perfectly master the interplay of commercial interests vs community interests and it's just not true that the full budget authority lies with the teams.

It does with the funds of the Association.

That is the case for some development fund(s), but throughout the entire budgets that go into the Drupal/Acquia ecosystem it is not at all the way they handle it.

Again, I am not talking about Acquia. They are part of the ecosystem, but the financial statement of the Association can be looked at independently. What is easy to see, is that the Association is concentrating on the conferences (=making money) and leaves a lot of the questions of spending it to the branch maintainers/teams. Very clearly, the Drupal Association states "The Drupal Association has no authority over the planning, functionality and development of the Drupal software." This is also reflected in it's budget.
https://assoc.drupal.org/about
https://assoc.drupal.org/blog/hollyrossdrupal/2013-audited-financials-drupal-association

Again, I don't mean to say the T3A should just copy the Drupal Accociation in every aspect, but I still believe the T3A spends way too much money on it's operations and way too little on product development.

    (1-17/17)