Proposal : We need a part-time Community Manager

[benjagm]

Dear TSC,

While the community stayed strong after some of the TSC members were affected by a layoff, we would benefit from having a part-time Community Manager as I am not able to provide the required quality time for it. This is why I would like to ask the TSC for approval to pay a part-time community manager.

We tried to get experienced contributors to the role with a call for Community Managers, but the response wasn't great.

The amount and the candidate are yet to be decided. However, I would strongly recommend we consider the Community Management Intern who is actually contributing to as part of the Community Management Internship Pilot.

In case of proceeding, we will need to modify this process:
https://github.com/json-schema-org/community/blob/main/COMMUNITY-MANAGER.md

Proposal

This voting issue is only to proceed with the idea of a part-time Community Manager.

[benjagm]

/vote

[git-vote]

Vote created

@benjagm has called for a vote on Proposal : We need a part-time Community Manager (#23).

The members of the following teams have binding votes:

Team
@json-schema-org/tsc

Non-binding votes are also appreciated as a sign of support!

How to vote

You can cast your vote by reacting to this comment. The following reactions are supported:

In favor	Against	Abstain
👍	👎	👀

Please note that voting for multiple options is not allowed and those votes won't be counted.

The vote will be open for 28days. It will pass if at least 75% of the users with binding votes vote In favor 👍. Once it's closed, results will be published here as a new comment.

[jviotti]

This is one of the best uses I can think of for OpenCollective money.

[gregsdennis]

I'm hesitant on this one. I get that you're overloaded, but I look at other open source projects and see that they're run by volunteers. More specifically, they have a large(ish) group of people who are active and perform various project tasks, so the burden isn't high for anyone in particular, and people are available pretty much at all times.

More importantly, though, if JSON Schema is going to have an employee, it seems to me that JSON Schema should be a legal entity. We'd also need to set up an employment agreement and go through other legal considerations.

[benjagm]

Thanks lot for your feedback Greg. And actually is great feedback.

What I know is we are neglecting a bit some community aspects I'd love to have more people involved. The idea of dividing the tasks between people is very interesting.

We don't need to hire anyone or have legal entity. This would be a freelance service. A freelance CM submitting an invoice to Open Collective at the end of the month.

[jdesrosiers]

I look at other open source projects and see that they're run by volunteers. More specifically, they have a large(ish) group of people who are active and perform various project tasks, so the burden isn't high for anyone in particular, and people are available pretty much at all times.

It might work for other projects, but historically it hasn't worked for us. Our volunteers haven't been interested in doing the things a community manager does, so those things don't get done. I'm happy to provide a financial incentive to keep someone active in that role if that's what it takes.

if JSON Schema is going to have an employee, it seems to me that JSON Schema should be a legal entity. We'd also need to set up an employment agreement and go through other legal considerations.

We don't need to hire anyone or have legal entity. This would be a freelance service. A freelance CM submitting an invoice to Open Collective at the end of the month.

I agree that this wouldn't be an employee, but there are probably some legal things we need to be aware of. There was a thing a while back were Uber got in trouble because their divers aren't employees but effectively working as if they were full-time employees without the normal benefits and protections of full-time employees. So, I think there are probably lines we can't cross before it starts looking like a tax dodge of some kind.

We should know where those lines are, but I find it highly unlikely we'd be anywhere near those lines. I assume we're talking about a modest sum that's more of a "thanks for helping out" than a living wage. It's unlikely that we're talking about sums that will get anyone concerned that we're breaking any laws.

[gregsdennis]

I can support this if we avoid presenting it as employment. For example, "part-time" (to me) conveys employment. I like "freelance", though.

A freelance CM submitting an invoice to Open Collective at the end of the month.

I expect we'll need some sort of explicit requirements for this person and an evaluation of whether they've fulfilled those requirements.

[jviotti]

I can support this if we avoid presenting it as employment. For example, "part-time" (to me) conveys employment. I like "freelance", though.

I like freelancer too. I also like the idea of a "sponsored contributor".

---

As a higher-level aside note, one of the things we touched on in the community working meeting yesterday is that we are not great at making use of the OpenCollective money. It is not a lot, but I think it actually doesn't grow because we don't know how to spend it. I think companies are a bit hesitant in donating to us because it might seem they throw money into the void.

If for example, this use of the money works well, I think it can help us on the storytelling for getting more donors: see what we did with this money, the community management help we got and the impact, so would you please donate to help?

[git-vote]

Vote status

So far 33.33% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 75%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
3	0	0	6

Binding votes (3)

User	Vote	Timestamp
jviotti	In favor	2025-02-14 14:24:28.0 +00:00:00
benjagm	In favor	2025-02-14 14:02:39.0 +00:00:00
jdesrosiers	In favor	2025-02-14 19:38:30.0 +00:00:00
@karenetheridge	Pending
@Julian	Pending
@mwadams	Pending
@awwright	Pending
@Relequestual	Pending
@gregsdennis	Pending

Non-binding votes (1)

User	Vote	Timestamp
adityajha2005	In favor	2025-02-15 6:14:30.0 +00:00:00

[git-vote]

Vote status

So far 55.56% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 75%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
5	0	0	4

Binding votes (5)

User	Vote	Timestamp
jdesrosiers	In favor	2025-02-14 19:38:30.0 +00:00:00
jviotti	In favor	2025-02-14 14:24:28.0 +00:00:00
Julian	In favor	2025-02-21 14:24:49.0 +00:00:00
benjagm	In favor	2025-02-14 14:02:39.0 +00:00:00
gregsdennis	In favor	2025-02-21 17:58:10.0 +00:00:00
@karenetheridge	Pending
@mwadams	Pending
@awwright	Pending
@Relequestual	Pending

Non-binding votes (1)

User	Vote	Timestamp
adityajha2005	In favor	2025-02-15 6:14:30.0 +00:00:00

[git-vote]

Vote status

So far 66.67% of the users with binding vote are in favor and 0.00% are against (passing threshold: 75%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
6	0	0	3

Binding votes (6)

User	Vote	Timestamp
jviotti	In favor	2025-02-14 14:24:28.0 +00:00:00
gregsdennis	In favor	2025-02-21 17:58:10.0 +00:00:00
mwadams	In favor	2025-02-28 14:38:22.0 +00:00:00
Julian	In favor	2025-02-21 14:24:49.0 +00:00:00
benjagm	In favor	2025-02-14 14:02:39.0 +00:00:00
jdesrosiers	In favor	2025-02-14 19:38:30.0 +00:00:00
@karenetheridge	Pending
@awwright	Pending
@Relequestual	Pending

Non-binding votes (1)

User	Vote	Timestamp
adityajha2005	In favor	2025-02-15 6:14:30.0 +00:00:00

[git-vote]

Vote closed

The vote did not pass.

66.67% of the users with binding vote were in favor and 0.00% were against (passing threshold: 75%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
6	0	1	2

Binding votes (7)

User	Vote	Timestamp
@benjagm	In favor	2025-02-14 14:02:39.0 +00:00:00
@jviotti	In favor	2025-02-14 14:24:28.0 +00:00:00
@karenetheridge	Abstain	2025-03-07 19:54:35.0 +00:00:00
@gregsdennis	In favor	2025-02-21 17:58:10.0 +00:00:00
@jdesrosiers	In favor	2025-02-14 19:38:30.0 +00:00:00
@Julian	In favor	2025-02-21 14:24:49.0 +00:00:00
@mwadams	In favor	2025-02-28 14:38:22.0 +00:00:00

Non-binding votes (1)

User	Vote	Timestamp
@adityajha2005	In favor	2025-02-15 6:14:30.0 +00:00:00

[benjagm]

With 7 votes in favour, we proceed with this proposal. Thanks everyone!