Sustainability, governance and partnerships of Decidim
Participatory process to define Decidim's management model and sustainability strategy
From 2019, a public-common governance of the code has been defined, thanks to the agreement signed between the City Council, the Decidim Association and the Localret Consortium. Representatives of these three entities become part of the Product team, and are responsible for overseeing the code.
The Product team is in charge of defining the software roadmap and responding to proposals for new functionalities made by the community in Metadecidim. It also ensures the coherence and technical sustainability of the software. The roadmap is done collaboratively in different ways:
- Through Metadecidim and the community (metaproposals)
- Through contracts with the association (ex: Vocdoni and the Voting module)
- Through the development contracts of the Barcelona City Council
Questions for the debate
- How can we ensure good collective governance of the code and the strategic direction of the product?
- What should be the role of the Association in Product, which bodies should be represented, which actors and what decision-making capacity should they have?
- What kind of improvements do we want to prioritise, and what criteria should be used to prioritise them?
How can I participate?
- By leaving your comments below. You can answer the questions or write your thoughts on the topic addressed in this debate.
- Upvote for the comments you agree with. Your votes will be taken into account when drafting the document.
Remember to express your opinion respectfully.
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Close debate
What is the summary or conclusion of this debate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
As Andres already said, many times we cannot even communicate what is going to be in the next releases until the tenders for those developments are made public.
But it is true that here we have a lot to improve. Although Decidim is surely not the best tool for the organization of releases, we also have a problem with the design of the space for new features. On the one hand, it is good to have an open space with the whole pool of ideas, as a backlog. But this is incomplete and dysfunctional when it comes to giving feedback. And I'm not just talking about the feedback from the product team, but about the collective discussion we would like to have around the proposals. Btw we failed miserably in our attempt to use the Accountability component to improve the general pool.
In this sense I fully agree with what Xavier (organize the process of the next release in phases) and Lucien (hypothesis and metrics) propose. It would be great if we could work together to design and systematize it. This would be of great value to the project!
Beyond the roadmap one or two years ahead and the releases, there are some much more strategic discussions that can lead to significant changes. Some at a feature level, for example:
- Should we allow participation without registration more generally?
and others at a much more technical level, for instance:
- What changes should we make to facilitate greater modularization and customization of the platform?
How we organize them to make them as participatory as possible?
Loading comments ...