Governance Built for Trust

Transparency, accountability, and rapid decision-making. As an independent, non-governmental organization modeled after ISO, TIA, and IEC, our governance structure ensures all stakeholders have a voice while maintaining the agility needed for effective action.

Note: This is only an exemplar draft to demonstrate the concept. The governance structure will be officially formulated in the future.

Non-Governmental Organization Model

The OSC operates as a membership-based organization where universities and research institutions with OSPOs become voting members, contributing funding and participating in strategic governance decisions.

🏛️ Institutional Membership

Member Categories

  • Universities with established OSPOs
  • Research institutions and laboratories
  • National research councils
  • International research consortiums

Member Rights & Responsibilities

  • Voting rights in governance decisions
  • Representation on technical committees
  • Access to shared resources and services
  • Financial contributions based on research volume

Organizational Structure

🏛️ Board of Directors

Composition

  • Representatives from major research institutions
  • Open source software maintainers
  • Funding agency representatives
  • Research software engineers
  • Community-elected members

Responsibilities

  • Strategic oversight and policy setting
  • Financial oversight and budget approval
  • Executive director appointment and evaluation
  • Community accountability and transparency

🌍 OSPO Network

Member OSPOs

  • University Open Source Program Offices
  • National research council OSPOs
  • Regional coordination networks
  • International collaboration hubs

Collaborative Functions

  • Fund collection and administration
  • Local project evaluation and support
  • Regional standards implementation
  • Community training and best practices

🔬 Technical Committees

Collegial Structure

  • Domain experts from member institutions
  • Software maintainers and research engineers
  • Cross-disciplinary representation
  • Rotating membership with term limits

Standards & Oversight

  • Research software quality standards
  • Documentation and testing requirements
  • Technical evaluation of funding proposals
  • Performance auditing and review processes

🔍 Auditing Bodies

Independent Oversight

  • Financial auditing and transparency
  • Performance evaluation and metrics
  • Conflict of interest management
  • Community feedback integration

Fast Turnaround

  • Streamlined review processes
  • Clear decision timelines
  • Rapid response mechanisms
  • Efficient appeals procedures

Funding Allocation Process

📊 Transparent Metrics

All funding decisions are based on publicly available metrics and clearly defined criteria:

📈 Usage Metrics (40%)

  • Download and installation statistics
  • Active user measurements
  • Dependency network analysis

🎓 Academic Impact (30%)

  • Citation tracking in publications
  • Grant proposal mentions
  • Research output attribution

🤝 Community Health (20%)

  • Contributor diversity and activity
  • Documentation quality
  • User support responsiveness

🚀 Innovation Potential (10%)

  • Technical advancement contribution
  • Cross-domain applicability
  • Ecosystem improvement impact

🔄 Review Cycles

Quarterly Reviews

Regular assessment of maintenance funding based on usage metrics and community feedback.

Annual Strategic Planning

Comprehensive review of priorities, budget allocation, and strategic initiatives.

Competitive Grant Cycles

Biannual competitive funding for innovation projects and new tool development.

Accountability Mechanisms

📋 Financial Transparency

🔍 Public Reporting

Quarterly financial reports with detailed breakdowns of funding sources and distributions.

📊 Performance Metrics

Real-time dashboard showing key performance indicators and impact measurements.

🔒 Independent Audits

Annual third-party audits ensuring financial integrity and compliance.

💬 Community Feedback

Regular surveys and feedback mechanisms for all stakeholder groups.

🗳️ Democratic Processes

  • Community Elections: Regular elections for community representatives
  • Open Meetings: Monthly public board meetings with community Q&A
  • Proposal System: Open process for community members to propose policy changes
  • Appeal Mechanism: Clear procedures for disputing funding decisions

Decision-Making Framework

⚡ Agile Governance

Operational Decisions

Timeline: 1-2 weeks
Authority: Executive team
Examples: Grant approvals, resource allocation

Policy Decisions

Timeline: 4-6 weeks
Authority: Board of Directors
Examples: Funding criteria changes, new programs

Strategic Decisions

Timeline: 2-3 months
Authority: Board + Community input
Examples: Mission changes, major partnerships

🎯 Conflict Resolution

  • Mediation Process: Structured mediation for disputes
  • Ethics Committee: Independent ethics oversight
  • Whistleblower Protection: Safe reporting mechanisms
  • Appeal Process: Clear escalation procedures

Our Commitment to You

🌟 Transparency

All decisions, metrics, and financial information are publicly available and regularly updated.

🤝 Accountability

We are accountable to the community through democratic processes and independent oversight.

⚡ Efficiency

Streamlined processes ensure quick decisions without sacrificing thoroughness or community input.

🎯 Impact

Every decision is guided by maximizing positive impact on research software sustainability.