Sometime after 5 am CDT today July 6, 2012, Alice Grevet posted the approved board minutes for the OSM Board Meeting held on June 19, 2012. It was sloppy - not at all like Alice's previous postings for the most part. For instance, attendees were listed but absentees were not. In this case, the newly elected treasurer wasn't present and he is still not listed as a board member on OSM's own website.
Update July 10, 2010: Today OSM updated their website to publish the bio of the new treasurer - Thomas Hampton - that they announced April 20, 2012. Looks like 82 days or 2 months and 21 days is the best you can expect of this board for simple tasks. We have certainly seen much longer for even slightly more complex tasks like publishing budgets and financial reports.
Another example was that the board approved the minutes of the previous meeting. Since they didn't discuss not having a meeting in May, it was up to the reader to figure out that they were referring to the April meeting. She also clearly stated
Review of OSM board of directors motions brought to the floor via the email list, please circulate list by email in advance No motions were made.
that no motions were made via the email list since the previous meeting. Yet, we find at the end of the minutes:
I have been essentially asking that question of OSM for some time now. Let's see, back on October 25, 2011 Paul Orwig announced what he characterized as an aggressive timeline to develop and publish the goals and budget for each leadership team. They were to be complete by January 2012 when OSM would vote to accept them. On June 27, 2012, Alice Grevet published OSM's goals for 2012. Is that right? Six months into the year for accomplishing the goals, they finalized and published them. Except, I can't find in the minutes where the goals were listed and voted on by the board. In fact, in the January, 2012 minutes they specifically stated: "OSM, PLT and CLT all have yet to complete the process of budget estimates and goal documentation." In the February, 2012 minutes they only stated: "With less than a majority in favor of making the certification goal a major goal for 2012, it will not be included in the list of major goals." In the March minutes there was an entry under the Budget Committee: "Reminder: We want to publish a blog by the end of April with updates on each of our 2012 goals (Communications: Alice, Events: Robert, TM/Legal: Jacques, Capital: Sukh). Please plan on providing a paragraph or two to Alice about your goal, and Alice will help assemble everything and get the blog published." In the April minutes there was an entry: "As part of the 2012 goal setting process, the leadership teams are asked to publish quarterly updates to the community. A few paragraphs from each team on updates and accomplishments will be published in a blog. Owners of the 4 OSM goals please get your reports in to Alice for publishing." Nowhere in the minutes that have been published is there any discussion on the goals or any documented approval of these goals by the board. So, I ask you "Where's the beef?"
I have blogged quite a bit about OSM's failure not only to keep it's promises of transparency (essentially resolutions of transparency) but also its failure to follow its own bylaws and the not for profit laws of the state of New York under which OSM is incorporated. If we think of OSM's failures to keep resolutions as similar to the failures of those of us who make New Year's resolutions to lose weight maybe we can put OSM's continued failures in perspective. You know what I mean - the elliptical machines and free weights will be occupied from dusk to dawn in January with people who made the New Year's Resolution to "get in shape." But by February, the gym will be nearly empty again.
So, OSM, a new year is about to start. Should you make a resolution to keep your previous resolutions? Here's a New Year's resolution OSM can keep: Resolve not to make any more New Year's resolutions (goals) or any resolutions.
Now, wasn't that easy? And, doesn't it fit the actual performance of OSM this past two years?
This is the mission statement developed in Germany in 2008 by OSM and the core team and still published on the OSM website:
Our mission is to provide a flexible platform for digital publishing and collaboration.
Yet, this is the mission statement described by Paul Orwig in his November 9th blog about OSM's top 2012 goal ideas:
OSM's mission is to provide open, responsible, and effective leadership in support of the Joomla! project’s legal, trademark, events, financial, and external communications needs.
That's quite a switch in mission statements! And apparantly without input from Joomla Leadership (it wasn't mentioned in the summaries of the San Jose summit) and there wasn't any input solicited from the Joomla! community. Looks like OSM is heading down its own singular pathway yet once again. Might help the current OSM board members to review the mission, vision, and value statements that they are responsible for alongside the rest of the Joomla! leadership.
If you go to all of the trouble to establish goals and objectives with teams - even all volunteer teams, then it behoves you to ensure that you follow-up with those teams and establish their success, partial success, or failure in accomplishing those goals and objectives before you go down the path of establishing new goals and objectives.
Back in May, 2011, Paul Orwig published the goals and objectives of the PLT (Production Leadership Team), the CLT (Community Leadership Team), and OSM (Open Source Matters). Now in late October, Paul is calling for setting new goals and budgets for 2012 but he is not calling first for how those teams did against their 2011 goals so far. This is simply a complete failure of the OSM board and its leadership in ensuring that the goals and objectives actually mean something and are not simply slid into a drawer somewhere and forgotten.