Splitting - Text for us and for communicating to the outside

[thessaly]

@vektorious, @amchagas and me reviewed the text sent by @jurra

We propose the following, combining his input with ours:

Open Hardware Leaders, what happens next

After the graduation of the first cohort and 14 weeks of collaborative work, the organization team has decided to split ways. The differences in our vision for a mentorship program like OHL are too significant, taking us into this joint decision after much effort on working them out.

OHL was initially an idea and an effort of four people (plus all the volunteers!), and in the spirit of collaboration and openness, we understand no one owns it. So we propose the experience of OHL stays online and open as a pilot project, a repository available for anyone to fork.

Considering this experience a collective achievement, we think the healthiest way to move forward is that the two different ideas for future hardware programs -one led by Jose Urra and the other one by Andre Chagas, Alex Kutschera and Juli Arancio-, learn from this experience and start their own way.

Agreements:
We agree that at this point the most healthy and fair decision is to split, so that each person is free to do what they feel is right, with the team they want and the people they get along with.

Fairgrounds for the splitting

• For the sake of transparency the discussions that led to the split will be made public, together with the organization repository, which has valuable lessons for anyone aiming to run a program like this

• Both parties should be able to achieve their goals without blocking the other in achieving their goals.

• Jose will carry on a second cohort in 2020 of the program, which the rest of the organizers plan for 2021.

• Andre, Alex and Julieta will use the financial support granted by Mozilla to improve the curriculum in a community effort, as originally conceived. Jose has expressed he will not participate in this process.

• OHL is not owned by any of the organizers, the new programs shouldn’t profit from previous ‘branding’ as it would create unequal starting points: both new programs should be renamed.

Proposal for assets:

• Twitter account (@openhwleaders): Julieta has been managing it and has mainly her contacts, it will be renamed accordingly
• Riot account: José has mostly managed it, we propose to keep it open for the community
• Website openhardware4.me: José has been mostly operating the website and can keep doing so
• Logo: made by José, won’t be used by the rest of organizers
• GitHub repository (https://github.com/Open-Hardware-Leaders): the organizers repository will be made public, and the whole organization’s account kept as legacy
• Domain openhardware4.me: owned by Andre, we propose to leave it as legacy with links to the new programs
• Gmail account, including YouTube channel and Google Drive (openhardware4me@gmail.com): this account is linked to Julieta’s phone and can’t be renamed. We propose both teams to make a copy of all the material and to keep it as legacy, and that both programs open their respective accounts. Emails that arrive to the old account can be automatically forwarded to both new programs.

[jurra]

Hey Guys I agree with almost everything, will just add something that is not clear at the moment for the audience:

Alex, Julieta and Andre will create a new curriculum in an open collaboration with other participants, they feel they want to significantly change the approach, contents, and so on, based on their experiences and expectations about how the program should be. For this purpose the financial support granted by Mozilla to improve the curriculum in a community effort, as originally conceived, will be used. Jose has expressed he will not participate in this process because he prefers to continue polishing and making small adjustments to the 1st cohort structure.

Why is this important to clarify? Some mentees recommend this program as it is, therefore it is good that people no which will continue or maintain the current appraoch. For your new journey this makes it easier for other mentors and mentees that want to join you in making a new curriculum with your approach and vision.

I plan to change the name to "open hardware devs", I want you to let you know in advance.

Thanks for putting this together I feel is getting somewhere and I honestly feel much more relieved. Thanks also to @Alex he has put a lot of effort and good will.

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Virus-free. www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:53 PM juli arancio notifications@github.com wrote:

@vektorious https://github.com/vektorious, @amchagas https://github.com/amchagas and me reviewed the text sent by @jurra https://github.com/jurra

We propose the following, combining his input with ours:

Open Hardware Leaders, what happens next

After the graduation of the first cohort and 14 weeks of collaborative work, the organization team has decided to split ways. The differences in our vision for a mentorship program like OHL are too significant, taking us into this joint decision after much effort on working them out.

OHL was initially an idea and an effort of four people (plus all the volunteers!), and in the spirit of collaboration and openness, we understand no one owns it. So we propose the experience of OHL stays online and open as a pilot project, a repository available for anyone to fork.

Considering this experience a collective achievement, we think the healthiest way to move forward is that the two different ideas for future hardware programs -one led by Jose Urra and the other one by Andre Chagas, Alex Kutschera and Juli Arancio-, learn from this experience and start their own way.

Agreements: We agree that at this point the most healthy and fair decision is to split, so that each person is free to do what they feel is right, with the team they want and the people they get along with.

Fairgrounds for the splitting

-

For the sake of transparency the discussions that led to the split will be made public, together with the organization repository, which has valuable lessons for anyone aiming to run a program like this

Both parties should be able to achieve their goals without blocking the other in achieving their goals.

Jose will carry on a second cohort in 2020 of the program, which the rest of the organizers plan for 2021.

Andre, Alex and Julieta will use the financial support granted by Mozilla to improve the curriculum in a community effort, as originally conceived. Jose has expressed he will not participate in this process.

OHL is not owned by any of the organizers, the new programs shouldn’t profit from previous ‘branding’ as it would create unequal starting points: both new programs should be renamed.

Proposal for assets:

• Twitter account (@openhwleaders): Julieta has been managing it and has mainly her contacts, it will be renamed accordingly
• Riot account: José has mostly managed it, we propose to keep it open for the community
• Website openhardware4.me: José has been mostly operating the website and can keep doing so
• Logo: made by José, won’t be used by the rest of organizers
• GitHub repository (https://github.com/Open-Hardware-Leaders): the organizers repository will be made public, and the whole organization’s account kept as legacy
• Domain openhardware4.me: owned by Andre, we propose to leave it as legacy with links to the new programs
• Gmail account, including YouTube channel and Google Drive ( openhardware4me@gmail.com): this account is linked to Julieta’s phone and can’t be renamed. We propose both teams to make a copy of all the material and to keep it as legacy, and that both programs open their respective accounts. Emails that arrive to the old account can be automatically forwarded to both new programs.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Open-Hardware-Leaders/organization/issues/33, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AENYNUI2HLN3RTYJSP36NRTRWEDYBANCNFSM4N3SV55A .

[jurra]

Fairgrounds for the splitting

• For the sake of transparency the discussions that led to the split will be made public, together with the organization repository, which has valuable lessons for anyone aiming to run a program like this
• Both parties should be able to achieve their goals without blocking the other in achieving their goals.
• Jose will carry on a second cohort in 2020 of the program, which the rest of the organizers plan for 2021.

Jose as Alex, Andre and Julieta, is improving the program, the difference is in how. Now it sounds like I am not interested in improving the program at all. With regards to dates, I havent decided yet when in 2020, or if is feasible, so I would announce the date for the next cohort still needs to be decided.

• Andre, Alex and Julieta will use the financial support granted by Mozilla to improve the curriculum in a community effort, as originally conceived. Jose has expressed he will not participate in this process.

I am also working with our community (of mentors and mentees), (the feedback from mentees, interviews and exchange are part of community work). Our difference is in approach, not in the fact that we will work with a community. Why I say this, now it sounds like I dont care the community or I dont work with the community which is no the case. The style and approach is different. This should be crystal clear.

• OHL is not owned by any of the organizers, the new programs shouldn’t profit from previous ‘branding’ as it would create unequal starting points: both new programs should be renamed.

[jurra]

Fair grounds rephrased towards more clarity:

• For the sake of transparency the discussions that led to the split will be made public, together with the organization repository, which has valuable lessons for anyone aiming to run a program like this

• Both parties should be able to achieve their goals without blocking the other in achieving their goals.

• Jose will carry on a second cohort in 2020 or 2021, keeping the same program approach with adjustments based on the feedback from the first cohort.

• Alex, Julieta and Andre will create a new curriculum in an open collaboration with other participants, because they feel the need to significantly imrpove and change the approach. This includes contents, governance model, program design, etc. (Please feel free to expand on this if needed). For this purpose the financial support granted by Mozilla to improve the curriculum in a community effort, as originally conceived, will be used. Jose has expressed he will not participate in this process because he prefers to continue polishing and making adjustments to the 1st cohort structure, based on the feedback and learnings from the previous cohort.

• For the sake of transparency the results of the form feedback will be shared, so that the partial evaluation of the course is accesible by mentors and mentees. (This is a very concrete way to engage the community by sharing our insights).

• OHL is not owned by any of the organizers, the new programs shouldn’t profit from previous ‘branding’ as it would create unequal starting points: both new programs should be renamed.

Why these changes?

It should be clear what goals and expectations we have:

1. We differ not in the what , but in the how. Each part will explore different ways of achieving similar goals. I basically want to continue the current approach, you dont feel comfortable or interested in doing so, and you want to try different things, which I think is fair and good.

Messages I dont want to explicitly or implicitly deliver, because they are not accurate or true

• One party cares about community another doesnt care.
• One party is interested in improving the program based on community feedback and another doesnt.
• Unclarity or vagueness with the fact that one of the programs will essentially remain consistent with the first cohort call in content, framing, learning goals, formats, etc, and another one will explore another approach that fits the expectations of the team.

[vektorious]

Jose will carry on a second cohort in 2020 or 2021, keeping the same program approach with adjustments based on the feedback from the first cohort.

I'd keep that separated. I rephrased it to clarify that we are talking about different kinds of feedback.

• Jose will carry on a second cohort in 2020 or 2021, which the rest of the organizers plan for 2021.
• Jose wants to retain the basic program structure and adjust it according to the results from the feedback forms of the first cohort.

Alex, Julieta and Andre will create a new curriculum in an open collaboration with other participants, because they feel the need to significantly imrpove and change the approach. This includes contents, governance model, program design, etc. (Please feel free to expand on this if needed). For this purpose the financial support granted by Mozilla to improve the curriculum in a community effort, as originally conceived, will be used. Jose has expressed he will not participate in this process because he prefers to continue polishing and making adjustments to the 1st cohort structure, based on the feedback and learnings from the previous cohort.

I strongly disagree to specify this here. We have no idea where we will end up after the community review. This sounds like we are developing a new program from scratch. That's not what we intend. I'd keep the previous text. With the additional info about you using the feedback forms to improve it, it should be clear that you are using a different kind of feedback

• Andre, Alex and Julieta will use the financial support granted by Mozilla to improve the curriculum in a community effort, as originally conceived. Jose has expressed he will not participate in this process.

For the sake of transparency the results of the form feedback will be shared, so that the partial evaluation of the course is accesible by mentors and mentees. (This is a very concrete way to engage the community by sharing our insights).

I'd rephrase it somehow but I like the idea

[vektorious]

Sorry 😄 I forgot to thank you for your input!

Thanks! I hope my comments/reworks are fine with you :)

[jurra]

Andre, Alex and Julieta will use the financial support granted by Mozilla to improve the curriculum in a community effort, as originally conceived. Jose has expressed he will not participate in this process.

Alex this is unclear in some regards, the previous text I put is clear and explicit. Why is this unclear?

1. It sounds like you are improving the curriculum and I am not, which is not the case.
2. I decided to just not participate in improving the curriculum, which is also not accurate. I firstly said that I will not lead it or be responsible for this process because of the energy it takes in many ways after running such a program. Then for the sake of making things easier for everyone, and because you want to try a different approach in improving the curriculum I am steping away so that you can fully work aligned and explore in the direction you guys want to go.

It has to be crystal clear why you want to try a new approach and I want to keep expanding the current approach. That is why you are going to do A and I am doing B. You have said it clearly before, for instance you dont like the design thinking approach, the canvas or value proposition approach, etc, etc. Just be clear about it and explain why you dont like it if necessesary. You are not satisfied with the results, and so on. All these can be said and explained to the public, I really dont mind that you are honest about all these things.

We have no idea where we will end up after the community review. This sounds like we are developing a new program from scratch. That's not what we intend. I'd keep the previous text.

This is an important implication of deciding this. If you have no idea where you will end up is because you have no certainty at all that the current format is good. On the other hand I am confident about it. This is one of the main reasons why we split, you are not certain, I am quite certain on this one. Both grounds are fair to sustain, and that is why among other reasons we decide to go in a different path. That is a main reason why I decided not to engage in the mozilla money.

[thessaly]

Alex, Julieta and Andre will create a new curriculum in an open collaboration with other participants, because they feel the need to significantly imrpove and change the approach. This includes contents, governance model, program design, etc. (Please feel free to expand on this if needed). For this purpose the financial support granted by Mozilla to improve the curriculum in a community effort, as originally conceived, will be used. Jose has expressed he will not participate in this process because he prefers to continue polishing and making adjustments to the 1st cohort structure, based on the feedback and learnings from the previous cohort.

It has to be crystal clear why you want to try a new approach and I want to keep expanding the current approach. That is why you are going to do A and I am doing B.

José, I think a fundamental concept you are not understanding (or is not reflected in this text) is that we are not aiming for a new complete approach to the program, you are saying so and this, as Alex said, isn't accurate. The situation is not you staying and us going towards a new path, I don't know if this is clear enough.

Why are we splitting in A and B?

• You want to run another cohort asap, we don't and it was not decided like this originally;
• You expressed many times the consultation process is not particularly important for you in order to do a 2nd cohort and for us is vital;
• We don't share common ground on success criteria for a program like this

From a personal point of view and after the discussions we had once the program ended, I'm also splitting in A and B because I think we don't share the same principles for collaborative/team work. This is not a minor thing, we don't have to publicly express it but for us at least it should be clear no?

So we are not trying 'a new approach' here, and this is why we're not just making a branch of the original but we agreed on 2 different programs. Your text is implying we are branching from you, and that you're attaching yourself to an 'original idea', but that isn't true.

If you have no idea where you will end up is because you have no certainty at all that the current format is good.

I think @vektorious didn't express himself well. We have a pretty good idea of where it will end, and we are working towards guiding and facilitating that process. We will end in a collaboratively-made, diverse curriculum that will be openly available for anyone, including us, to use.

[thessaly]

On your proposal:

For the sake of transparency the results of the form feedback will be shared, so that the partial evaluation of the course is accesible by mentors and mentees. (This is a very concrete way to engage the community by sharing our insights).

Forms should be anonymized then. People never gave their consent for this.

[thessaly]

Some rephrasing, again

• For the sake of transparency the discussions that led to the split will be made public, together with the organization repository, which has valuable lessons for anyone aiming to run a program like this

• Both parties should be able to achieve their goals without blocking the other in achieving their goals.

• Jose will carry on a second cohort in 2020 or 2021, keeping the same program approach with adjustments based on the feedback from the first cohort.

• Alex, Julieta and Andre will engage in a community consultation process, funded by Mozilla, aimed at getting input for a more diverse, representative curriculum to be made openly accessible, which will be the basis of a future program.

• For the sake of transparency the results of the form feedback will be shared, so that the partial evaluation of the course is accesible by mentors and mentees.

• OHL is not owned by any of the organizers, the new programs shouldn’t profit from previous ‘branding’ as it would create unequal starting points: both new programs should be renamed.

[jurra]

Hi @thessaly I understand the point of not creating a new program.

I comeback to this, because it is part of the fair grounds to me:

Messages I dont want to explicitly or implicitly deliver, because they are not accurate or true

• One party cares about community another doesnt care.
• One party is interested in improving the program based on community feedback and another doesnt.

Message that should be clear:

• We share similar goals and values with regard to achieving openness,, but we also have important differences in how this is achieved and implemented. This is one of the main reasons why we have decided to split.

Rephrasing:

Some rephrasing, again

• We share common openness goals and values. But we also have important differences in how this is achieved and implemented. This is one of the main reasons why we have decided to split the current OHL program into two different ones.

• For the sake of transparency the discussions that led to the split will be made public, together with the organization repository, which has valuable lessons for anyone aiming to run a program like this one.

• Both parties should be able to achieve their goals without blocking the other in achieving their goals.

• Jose will carry on a second cohort in 2020 or 2021, keeping the same program approach with adjustments based on the feedback from the first cohort given by mentors and mentees.

• Alex, Julieta and Andre will engage in a community consultation process, funded by Mozilla, aimed at getting input for a more diverse, representative curriculum to be made openly accessible, which will be the basis of a future program.

• For the sake of transparency the results of the form feedback will be shared, so that the partial evaluation of the course is accesible by mentors and mentees.

• OHL is not owned by any of the organizers, the new programs shouldn’t profit from previous ‘branding’ as it would create unequal starting points: both new programs should be renamed.

[thessaly]

Hi @jurra, we reviewed your last version of the text and it's ok for us.

We only have a comment regarding the opening of the feedback forms. This demands reaching out again to people who completed the survey, asking for consent and anonymize in case they agree to it. We don't want to engage in reaching out again, but you're completely free to do it on your behalf, once we split and Open Hardware Devs is formally running.

All, please take a look at the final text below. If you're ok with it I suggest to publish in on openhardware4.me website, and then we can use that to communicate it through email, twitter, etc.

---

Open Hardware Leaders, what happens next

After the graduation of the first cohort and 14 weeks of collaborative work, the organization team has decided to split ways. The differences in our vision for a mentorship program like OHL are too significant, taking us into this joint decision after much effort on working them out.

OHL was initially an idea and an effort of four people (plus all the volunteers!), and in the spirit of collaboration and openness, we understand no one owns it. So we propose the experience of OHL stays online and open as a pilot project, a repository available for anyone to fork.

Considering this experience a collective achievement, we think the healthiest way to move forward is that the two different ideas for future hardware programs -one led by Jose Urra and the other one by Andre Chagas, Alex Kutschera and Juli Arancio-, learn from this experience and start their own way.

Agreements:

• We share common openness goals and values. But we also have important differences in how this is achieved and implemented. This is one of the main reasons why we have decided to split the current OHL program into two different ones.

• For the sake of transparency the discussions that led to the split will be made public, together with the organization repository, which has valuable lessons for anyone aiming to run a program like this one.

• Both parties should be able to achieve their goals without blocking the other in achieving their goals.

• Jose will carry on a second cohort in 2020 or 2021, keeping the same program approach with adjustments based on the feedback from the first cohort given by mentors and mentees.

• Alex, Julieta and Andre will engage in a community consultation process, funded by Mozilla, aimed at getting input for a more diverse, representative curriculum to be made openly accessible, which will be the basis of a future program.

• OHL is not owned by any of the organizers, the new programs shouldn’t profit from previous ‘branding’ as it would create unequal starting points: both new programs should be renamed.

[jurra]

Sounds good to me, this is the best we can get