The key question here is what defines a core instance. If these newer instances want to be included then why would they not be. Simple answer is because there is a cost of including them and global pot isn’t sure whether we should pay this when new instances have no money, and if we do for some should we do for all, and if not how we decide
This is an active discussion in global gov sessions and I agree that’s the right place to continue them (discussions and proposals)
Here’s some more info to shape development of a possible proposal
What’s a ‘Core’ Instance / Who is in the Global Sys Admin pool now
Are ‘core instances’ just those who contribute $$ to the global pot? Well no. Why is USA in our current group of ‘core’ instances? There is history on this, but ultimately because we decided that
A) the risk and opportunity cost of not having a ‘good-looking’ and useable instance in the USA was too high.
B) if we didn’t fill the gap someone else who wasn’t values-aligned was going to (was actively attempting to)
C) at the time this decision was made @lauriewayne1 was a very active member of the community and was clearly contributing to the commons in many ways even if not financially
D) the likelihood of significant funds being able to be accessed in the USA at some point is very high, and having a strong, stable and used instance there increases the likelihood of access to those funds
E) there was an element of marginal cost increase to just add one to the pool i.e. most of the setup work was already done - they had demonstrated high degree of commitment, gumption and capability
This last condition is now likely the same for Belgium and Germany, they funded their own setup and maintenance for a period, so it is legacy reasons why they are in this pool, rather than any particular strength or ‘core-ness’ to the community of these instances.
Let’s turn this into a proposal . .
Proposal - Request to become part of Global Sys-Admin Instance Support
We establish a process whereby an affiliate can request to become part of the global sys admin pool (similar to a request to become Certified Contributor). There are basically two pathways to being accepted for this.
-
Pay your own way - active financial contributions to the global pot from the outset. We need to agree and publish a ‘rates’ table for this, likely taking the economic and currency situation of a proposing instance into account
-
Can’t yet pay. To support their request, they should outline both their potential and demonstrated contribution to the Commons. This can include:
- That the instance is available to farmers and food hubs in that country - they have managed to get an instance set-up on their own steam. This demonstrates commitment, a realistic understanding of the challenges and complexities AND a potential expansion of the global development capability
- That the instance is accessible to farmers and food hubs in that country - there is a support person / process / team and potential users can contact someone and will be supported to setup and learn to use the platform
- That they are actively building a presence and relationships with the agroecology and food movements of their country - they are connected and integrated and aligned with the needs of their local context
- That they are aligned with and committed to the development of the Commons and are actively part of and contributing to the Community. The simplest way to demonstrate this is that we know how you are and you have developed relationships in the Community. We have likely come to know you through Global Hangouts, listening circles, the #instance-managers channel, well-specified and high quality bug reports, papercut suggestions and wishlist items. In order to have demonstrated this last point, you will need to have engaged with and understood the prioritisation and development process. NB. Occasionally dropping into slack and telling us what ‘you’ (i.e. we) should have prioritised or done or should do next does not meet this criteria
- Genuine and competent efforts in fundraising i.e. links to actual completed and submitted fundraising applications. You have likely worked with others in the global team on these, accessing useful previous funding applications and incorporating global contributions into your fundraising in a way that aligns with established processes i.e. you haven’t just said “we’ll spend $20,000 fixing XXX” without any understanding of if and how this will align with the coordinated development process
- ?? not sure about this one - nice to have - indication that the technical capacity you drew upon to get this far is interested in / being redirected to supporting the development pipe i.e. picking up code reviews, papercuts, ‘welcome new devs’ issues etc
NB. I believe there are a couple of newer instances who could easily demonstrate their meeting of these criteria if they wanted to - note this is a voluntary process, not an expectation or requirement. If they are happy continuing to manage their own deployments that’s fine
TBC - Proposals for:
- process to remove or ‘hibernate’ an instance from global sys admin
Comments here very welcome
and if people think this is on the right track I will move it into the google doc for the Global Governance - Discussions and Proposals google doc for comments / refinement prior to the session.