I really like the simplicity of the whole thing. It may be too simple for DDEV, but OTOH adding to it is better than starting with something way fancier.

I like the Roles, responsibilities, points-of-contact they have. Super simple. Probably not always updated, but very clear.

The financial section is quite weak, just saying who's in charge and not specifying how financial priorities are determined or decisions made. But Backdrop has a much smaller budget and no paid committers.

A note: When we change our strategy, the founding documents have to be updated. This isn't hard.

One of the questions I have is that the Apache model has the PMC reporting to a Board of Directors. I think we'd likely also have to have a Board of Directors to meet the 501(c)(3) organization expectations. I don't see that in the Backdrop explanations.

One of the questions I have is that the Apache model has the PMC reporting to a Board of Directors.

Backdrop does not have a board of Directors - our only leadership structures are the PMC (which essentially serves as a board) and the core committers. Backdrop is itself also not a 501(c)(3) - we have the Software Freedom Conservancy to fill that role for us.

The financial section is quite weak, just saying who's in charge and not specifying how financial priorities are determined or decisions made

As mentioned, we don't make a lot of financial decisions. So far, it's been reasonable for the PMC to discuss each one as it comes. Since we don't have a lot of competing priorities, it hasn't been an issue. It probably would be a good idea to have more guidance on priorities for future PMC members.

I'll take a stab at some of @ultimike 's questions :)

a. What, if anything, would you change about the current leadership structure?

Our PMC only gets new members that are nominated by existing PMC members, and voted on by existing PMC members. I have concerns about the current people in power being able to choose future people in power. (Fortunately, we have faced neither of the below issues thus far)

• It creates an "insiders-only" onramp, that in order to be nominated to be on the PMC, one needs to already know someone in the PMC well enough to be nominated
• It would be possible for a minority in the PMC to nominate and vote in specific people who could change the outcome of some particularly important vote.

To address these issues, I would recommend either or both of the following:

• allow anyone in the community to nominate potential new PMC members for consideration (including themselves) but perhaps have some criteria for the nomination
• allow core committers (or other trusted community members) to also vote on PMC members so that there is a large enough pool of voters that the deck can't be stacked

b. What advice would you give us about modeling our governance the same way as Backdrop's?

I'd recommend having regularly scheduled meetings for the PMC to meet real-time and discuss issues that need attention. We operated in an issue-queue-only model for a while and found it less effective. We still use the issue queue to document everything - which is useful for current and future members. But having that time to talk together is really valuable.

c. Other than the content on backdropcms.org/leadership, where the minimum recommended documents that are necessary to make it a reality?

We also have some procedural documents for PMC members that explains the exact process for voting, opening new issues, etc. I'd be happy to share those notes if it would be valuable.