Governance guide
The governance guide is a product of the "Shared Resources" working group. The aim is to provide a framework for reflection and the main principles followed by the Campus Cyber in setting up the governance of a cyber community.
Cette doctrine pourra être amenée à évoluer dans le temps.
Governance principles
Role of governance
Campus Cyber recommends that governance focus on monitoring impact objectives. The project team must retain a high degree of autonomy in its technical and functional decisions, and in the management of its priorities.
If necessary, the governance committee can recommend technical guidelines or ask for a technical committee to be set up to ensure ongoing monitoring of the project team's choices.
Generally speaking, governance should focus on the following elements:
- Define its decision-making and review procedures
- Define the strategic orientations of the resource
- Validate the definition of a contribution and its follow-up
- Validate license evolutions
- Define conflict management and exclusion procedures
- Define and revise impact objectives
- Monitor the market value of the resource
Governance involves an annual review of the common objectives, scope, impact targets and changes to the business model and reciprocity.
Governance composition
Campus Cyber advocates a light governance structure, adapted to the timeframe and role of the community. Governance should not exceed nine permanent members. By way of example, the Cyber Campus proposes the following three typologies, distributed as follows:
- Beneficiaries - 20% to 30% of seats
- Licensees - 20% to 30% of seats
- Contributors - 20% to 30% of seats
Each community will define the typologies best suited to its activity. Nevertheless, the typologies will remain exclusive, and each player must propose its own typology, which must be validated by the members of the governance committee.
The Cyber Campus requires the addition to its governance of a type of actor who is neutral in relation to the common good. This member, known as an "ethical member", is a member of Campus Cyber who has no direct involvement with the commons, but is a member of the deontology commission (see conflict management below). In exceptional cases, this ethical member may be a member of the Campus Cyber team.
The "ethical member" must have one seat. His/her vote has the same weight as that of the other members of the Board of Directors. The "ethical member" is subject to the same rules as the other governance members.
Conditions for accessing and maintaining governance
The entities that participated in the coordination of the WG at the origin of the creation of a common have a priority place in governance, to guarantee continuity and transmission from the WG to the common.
In the same way, it is advisable to offer access to governance primarily to active members of the WG, while guaranteeing the proportions cited in the "Composition of governance" chapter. Governance must reflect the diversity of the colleges involved.
Access to governance can be by nomination or election within the colleges. Mandatory criteria for access to governance :
- Being a Campus Cyber's Member
Each member of the governance team must respect the following principles:
- Be assiduous
- Comply with the Campus Cyber chart
- Respect the terms of use (CGU)
Failure to comply with these principles may result in exclusion from governance. The same applies to leaving the Campus Cyber.
Term of office
To guarantee a healthy renewal, while ensuring the continuity of the Common's work, the term of office must not exceed 3 years, renewable once.
The renewal of mandates must be partial (by 1/3 or 1/2). This means that, from the first term, some seats will be shortened to allow the renewal model to be implemented.
Decision-making methods
Each governance can choose its own decision-making method. However, the Cyber Campus allows several decision-making methods to be used, depending on the criticality of the arbitration.
- Absolute majority:' Voters must represent half plus 1 vote for a decision to be validated.
- Qualified majority: Voters must represent at least 2/3 of the votes for a decision to be validated.
- Vote by value: Voters must give their opinion on 5 levels (Reject, Clarify, Neutral, Proceed, Validate). Opinions may be accompanied by questions or comments. All opinions are combined to produce a score. The sum of the scores must represent 2/3 of the points to validate the proposal.
- Consent Process:' Decision-making follows a process that involves validating a decision if no member of the group has objected to it. Decision-making is a participatory process, which means that the decision will be validated when no further reasonable objections are raised.
Conflict management
Managing common ground requires a clear, cost-effective conflict management process.
Conflict management is based on two essential functions. The "ethics member" is responsible for acting as rapporteur and liaising with the ethics commission.
The mediation function is carried out by the Commission de déontologie.
Commission of Ethics
The ethics commission is made up of members from each college. Each college must identify at least two volunteers to join the group of deontologists. The members of the group of deontologists are the ethical members of the governance bodies.
The role of the ethics commission is to review the ethics charter, monitor its application and advise the governance bodies of the cyber commons.
In the event of a conflict management referral, five members of the deontology commission will be mandated to arbitrate the case. None of the members of the commission shall have any connection with the parties involved or with the community concerned by the conflict.
The commission can meet and hear the various parties as often as necessary to resolve the conflict. The commission must reach a decision within a maximum of two months of the referral, with the first conflict presentation meeting serving as the launch of the system.
The commission is required to produce an annual activity report containing a history of decisions and changes to the chart.
Referral process
The referral process to the deontology commission must go through the common governance to be ratified.
Any stakeholder with an interest in the common may request that a dispute be placed on the governance agenda for arbitration.
During governance deliberations, it may be decided to initiate a conflict management process. The conflict management process may be initiated because a perceived prejudice cannot be resolved through governance.
From then on, the ethics member becomes rapporteur for the ethics commission. The ethics member must convene a five-member ethics commission.
The ethical member must compile the conflict follow-up file, which must contain at least :
- Explanation of the context
- Description of the perceived damage
- Requests and positions of the various parties
- Request for resolution timeframe
The conflict follow-up file should include a summary of the deliberations and decisions of the ethics commission. Once the conflict has been resolved, the ethics commission will need to feed a conflict handling repository with a history of previous decisions.
As a first step, the parties undertake, in good faith, to comply with the defined resolution process before resorting to any other resolution body.
If the internal mediation carried out by the ethics commission does not lead to a satisfactory resolution for all parties, it is possible to be accompanied by an external mediator. The deontology commission is free to decide whether to finance the support provided by the joint body, or to have the mediation carried out by the parties involved in the conflict.
== License and T&Cs The purpose of this section is to define the license used by the common to manage exploitation and commercialization.
The aim is to have a set of licenses that encourages the propagation of the commons to train, develop knowledge and reinforce the competitive advantages of the ecosystem, while guaranteeing the evolution and durability of the commons itself. Commercial exploitation must be authorized and encouraged for all those who wish to do so, while recognizing contributions that help the commons to evolve, enabling the establishment of a form of reciprocity.
The license must specify the terms and conditions governing constraints on access to the common and the related marketing rules.
This license differentiates between creative and economic participation. In this context, the notion of contribution recognizes only creative participation.
Involvement in the governance of the commons is not considered a contribution.
Each community must define its own reciprocity model, linking commercial benefits (see Table of benefits) to recognized contributions.
Definition of contributions
A contribution refers to all modifications, corrections, translations, adaptations and/or new functionalities integrated into the resource and recognized by governance.
A contribution can take the form of software development, datasets, documentation, feeds, and so on. A contribution must bring value to the common good. A contribution is considered effective once it has been delivered and validated by the team in charge of managing the commons.
Launch of contributions
Governance can define compensation and reciprocity for each member's investment in the upstream phases of making the resource available.
Recognition of contributions
In order to make the recognition of contributions as flexible as possible for the governance of the commons, we propose to follow a model based on realized contributions.
At the start of each financial year, contributors produce a statement of projected contributions in the form of a Statement of Projected Contributions (EPC / SPC).
At the end of each financial year, contributors produce a statement of their achievements in the form of a Recapitulative Statement of Contributions (RSC / SoC).
Contributions are subject to economic evaluation.
These two statements must be provided at least one month before the annual governance meeting called to decide on the pool's budget for the year just ended and for the year to come. In this way, the teams in charge of managing the pool will be able to issue an opinion on the achievement of contributions, provide a history of annual contributions and provide a forecast of contributions.
Other models can be tested where appropriate, and incorporated into possible future modalities.
Reciprocity models
Allocations are made following validation of contributions for the previous reference period. The reference period is the Campus Cyber financial year.
Each common must guarantee its own operation and evolution.
Exemple correspondance de réciprocité
| Echelle de contribution | Echelle de contrepartie | Exemples de contrepartie |
| < 5 000€ | Contrepartie 1 | Remerciement / Badge |
| < 10 000€ | Contrepartie 2 | Réduction / RFA sur CA |
| < 50 000€ | Contrepartie 3 | Réduction / RFA sur CA / Gratuité |
| > 50 000€ | Contrepartie 4 | Réduction / RFA sur CA / Gratuité / Porte parole du Commun |
Une approche envisageable complémentaire pour la reconnaissance des contributions, serait de la création d’un « badge » permettant de montrer la participation d’une entité à la production ou l’usage d'un commun.
Modèle de licence
En cours de construction, V1 prévue pour T4 2022
Ressources pour les licences en creative commons : https://chooser-beta.creativecommons.org/
Exemples de Modèles d'affaire
Les modèles d’affaires présentés dessous ne sont pas exhaustifs ni exclusif. Néanmoins, ces modèles sont constitutifs des licences et conditions d’usages du commun.
Les modèles d’affaires pourront évoluer sur proposition de l’équipe de production ou d’exploitation et validation par la gouvernance.
Les modèles d’affaires présentés ci-dessous sont des sources d’inspiration issues des pratiques observées dans le monde de l’open source.
Approche de la double licence : Le mécanisme de la double licence consiste à proposer le logiciel à la fois sous une licence libre et à des conditions propriétaires distinctes. La version propriétaire peut ainsi être vendue pour financer le développement continu de la version libre gratuite.
Approche Vente de services professionnels : Les revenus proviennent de la vente de services, tels que la fourniture de formations, de support technique ou de prestations conseil, plutôt que de la vente du logiciel lui-même.
Approches Vente de certificats et d’usage de marque : Le modèle d’affaires est basé sur un réseau de partenaires commerciaux qui sont certifiés et autorisés à utiliser le nom et le logo, en échange ils reversent une part de leurs revenus qui finance le développement du cœur du logiciel (ex : Moodle).
Approches Vente de logiciel comme service Software as a Service : Correspond à la vente de souscriptions à des clients pour des accès distants.
Approches Partenariats avec des organismes de financement : Des modèles économiques sont basés sur des partenariats avec d’autres entreprises.
Approches Dons volontaires : Mise en place d’un système de don de la part des usagers et identification de bienfaiteurs reconnues.
Approches Production participative : La production participative est proposée, par l’intermédiaire d’appels ouverts à contributions. La réalisation de la tâche de complexité et modularité variables, à laquelle le groupe doit participer en apportant travail, ressources financières, savoirs et/ou expérience implique toujours un bénéfice mutuel.
Approches Financement par la publicité : Afin de commercialiser des de nombreuses entreprises ont fait évoluer leur modèle d’affaires vers des logiciels financés par la publicité.
Approches Vente d’extensions propriétaires optionnelles : Certaines entreprises vendent des extensions, modules, plugins ou add-ons optionnels. Cette approche est une variante du modèle d’affaires freemium. Les extensions payantes et/ou propriétaires peut être conçu pour permettre aux clients de tirer un avantage supérieur de leurs données, infrastructure ou plate-forme, par exemple, les faire fonctionner plus efficacement, mieux les gérer, mieux les sécuriser. Certaines entreprises réinvestissent une partie de leurs bénéfices financiers dans l’infrastructure open source.
Approches Vente de composants propriétaires indispensables d’un produit logiciel : Une variante de l’approche ci-dessus consiste à garder restrictive des données et contenus indispensables d’un produit logiciel tout en libérant le code source. Les utilisateurs doivent acheter le contenu afin de disposer d’une solution complète et fonctionnelle. Des licences restrictives peuvent en outre s’appliquer au contenu, ce qui empêche la redistribution ou la revente du logiciel complet.
Approches Vente de systèmes de mise à jour propriétaires : Une autre variante du modèle d’affaires ci-dessus, utilisé notamment pour des logiciels traitant beaucoup de données ou dont l’architecture est centrée sur la gestion de données, est le fait de conserver chaque version du logiciel sous une licence open source, mais de s’abstenir de publier les scripts de mise à jour d’une version n à une version n+1.
Les utilisateurs peuvent encore déployer et faire fonctionner le logiciel open source. Cependant, toute mise à jour à une version supérieure impose à l’utilisateur :
- soit de souscrire à un service fermé ou d’acquérir un système de mises à jour sous licence propriétaire ;
- soit d’exporter la totalité des données, installer la nouvelle version, puis réimporter les données dans cette nouvelle version ;
- soit d’étudier le code source des deux versions et de recréer lui-même les scripts requis.
Approches Redistribution sous licence propriétaire : Si un produit logiciel utilise uniquement des logiciels par une licence de logiciel permissive une autre entreprise peut redistribuer le logiciel obtenu produit sous une licence propriétaire et le vendre sans le code source ou les libertés logicielles. Par exemple, Apple Inc. est un fervent utilisateur de cette approche et exploite le code source et les logiciels de projets open source.
Approches Offuscation de code source : L’offuscation de code source est une approche pour permettre la commercialisation sous une licence open source tout en protégeant des secrets d’affaires cruciaux, des éléments de propriété intellectuelle et des savoir-faire techniques.
Source d’information : https://fr.google-info.org/11294521/1/modeles-economiques-des-logiciels-open-source.html
Glossaire
Bénéficiaires : désigne les utilisateurs finaux de la ressource.
Commun : désigne l’association des règles, de la gouvernance et de la ressource.
Contrat : désigne le présent contrat de licence, ses éventuelles versions postérieures et annexes, documentation, dans leur état au moment de l'acceptation du Contrat par le Licencié.
Contributeur : désigne une personne physique ou morale auteur d'au moins une contribution.
Contribution : désigne l'ensemble des modifications, corrections, traductions, adaptations et/ou nouvelles fonctionnalités intégrées dans la ressource et reconnues par la gouvernance.
Exploitant : désigne le licencié en charge de maintenir et d’intégrer les évolutions de la ressource.
Licencié : désigne le ou les utilisateur(s) contractuel(s) de la ressource.
Parties : désigne l’ensemble des bénéficiaires, licenciés et contributeurs.
