No subject

Chris

Chris Sharp
PINES Program Manager
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Suite 150
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
(404) 235-7147
csharp at georgialibraries.org
http://pines.georgialibraries.org/

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Corridan (ICPR)" <jcorridan at icpr.IN.gov>
> To: "Amy Terlaga" <terlaga at biblio.org>, "Chris' 'Sharp" <csharp at georgialibraries.org>, "Galen Charlton"
> <gmc at esilibrary.com>
> Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 10:34:42 AM
> Subject: RE: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this
> Amy -
> 
> Does this mean the consortium (agency) represents its members or are
> they also members?
> 
> Jim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
> [mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On
> Behalf Of Amy Terlaga
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 9:51 AM
> To: 'Sharp, Chris'; 'Galen Charlton'
> Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this
> 
> Yes, yes! What Chris just wrote:
> 
> I think that the finer points about the ways consortia are managed
> can't be
> part of the by-laws. I would suggest that a consortium would have a
> single
> "agency" vote and that the Evergreen Foundation would leave the
> polling of
> individual member libraries to the consortium's internal governance
> structure.
> -------------
> Bibliomation works in much the same way as Pines does. We represent
> the
> needs of our individual member libraries. They trust us to do this.
> 
> I have just finished reading the bylaws and I have many comments.
> First I
> will read through all of your emails to see what has already been
> discussed
> before I weigh in on anything else.
> 
> Amy
> 
> =======================
> Amy Terlaga
> Assistant Director, User Services
> Bibliomation
> 32 Crest Road
> Middlebury, CT 06762
> (203)577-4070 x101
> http://www.biblio.org
> ----
> Bibliomation's Open Source blog:
> http://biblio-os.blogspot.com/
> 
> 
> Join us on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=171935276419
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
> [mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Sharp, Chris
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 9:43 AM
> To: Galen Charlton
> Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this
> 
> > One issue that I think has not been settled upon is the membership
> > status of libraries in a consortium. My proposal is that if a
> > self-governing library uses Evergreen via its membership in a
> > consortium, that it would qualify as a contributing member, as would
> > the consortium itself. However, to prevent potential for problems, I
> > would also suggest that:
> >
> > (a) All members have to explicitly apply for membership; while a
> > library using Evergreen would automatically qualify for membership,
> > they have to at least go to the effort of applying.
> > (b) Voting by proxy is forbidden; in particular, a consortium or
> > employer cannot register a vote on behalf of its member libraries or
> > employees.
> > (c) A consortium is forbidden from *requiring* its members to vote
> > in
> > any particular way via the member's agreement with the consortium or
> > through undue contractual pressure. A consortium is also forbidden
> > from contractually requiring that its members show up for votes.
> > This
> > does not rule out a consortium lobbying its members to establish a
> > unified voting bloc, but raises the bar sufficiently to prevent
> > abuse.
> 
> I won't speak for other consortia, but I can tell you that PINES is
> not
> really set up to work this way, with each of its member libraries
> having
> individual Evergreen Foundation memberships. "PINES" as a whole
> consists of
> its member libraries, who are represented by a governance body called
> the
> "PINES Executive Committee", which represents libraries by size of
> population served. The PINES Executive Committee speaks on behalf of
> the
> entire consortium and so would be in direct conflict of point (b). The
> PINES staff of GPLS facilitates the business of the Executive
> Committee and
> would bring development needs approved by the Executive Committee on
> behalf
> of the full consortium.
> 
> I think that the finer points about the ways consortia are managed
> can't be
> part of the by-laws. I would suggest that a consortium would have a
> single
> "agency" vote and that the Evergreen Foundation would leave the
> polling of
> individual member libraries to the consortium's internal governance
> structure. Maybe someone else has a better solution for this dilemma?
> 
> Chris Sharp
> PINES Program Manager
> Georgia Public Library Service
> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150
> Atlanta, Georgia 30345
> (404) 235-7147
> csharp at georgialibraries.org
> http://pines.georgialibraries.org/
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Galen Charlton" <gmc at esilibrary.com>
> > To: "Lori Bowen Ayre" <lori.ayre at galecia.com>
> > Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 9:20:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Aug 27, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Lori Bowen Ayre wrote:
> >
> > > 2) expanding the concept of "contribution" such that it isn't
> > > limited to writing code
> >
> > As Dan had suggested, the Sugar Labs model is a good basis for
> > defining contributors. Quoting
> > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members:
> >
> > "Any "significant and sustained" contributor to Sugar Labs is
> > eligible
> > for membership. Although it is difficult to specify a precise
> > definition, a contributor generally must have contributed to a
> > non-trivial improvement of the Sugar project or Sugar Labs activity.
> > Contributions may be code, documentation, translations, maintenance
> > of
> > project-wide resources, running a Sugar deployment, or other
> > non-trivial activities which benefit Sugar Labs. Membership
> > eligibility is an individual determination: while contributions made
> > in the course of employment will be considered, they will generally
> > be
> > ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all
> > employees of a "contributing" corporation. The Membership and
> > Elections Committee (MEC / MembCom) will oversee membership
> > applications (Please apply by sending email to members at
> > sugarlabs.org)."
> >
> > Applying this to Evergreen, a significant contribution could take
> > many
> > forms:
> >
> > * running an Evergreen system that is in production use. I would
> > suggest defining "running" as broadly as possible, so that a library
> > whose Evergreen catalog is hosted by another party or is part of a
> > consortium would be eligible for membership. Since "running" is an
> > institutional function at most libraries, the library could
> > designate
> > the individual (be it the systems librarian, the director, or
> > someone
> > else) who would be that institution's representative.
> > * writing documentation
> > * creating translations
> > * hosting Evergreen project resources, which would include things
> > such
> > as the website, public test servers, continuous integration servers,
> > and so forth
> > * writing code
> > * providing significant funding for any of the above activities
> > * employing (and explicitly supporting) an individual member's
> > contributions
> >
> > If an individual or institution contributes in more than one way,
> > however, they would be entitled to only one membership.
> >
> > One consequence of the funding clauses I'm proposing is that a
> > library
> > who employs a direct Evergreen contributor would thereby be able to
> > count on at least two memberships, one for the contributor and one
> > for
> > her employer. Another consequence, to put it bluntly, is that no
> > vendor is going to be able to have more members than the number of
> > contributors they employ plus one (for the vendor itself as
> > employer).
> > We all want and expect Evergreen's usage to grow; even now the
> > potential membership among libraries simply running Evergreen is
> > greater than the total employment (of current or potential
> > contributors) among all current vendors.
> >
> > One issue that I think has not been settled upon is the membership
> > status of libraries in a consortium. My proposal is that if a
> > self-governing library uses Evergreen via its membership in a
> > consortium, that it would qualify as a contributing member, as would
> > the consortium itself. However, to prevent potential for problems, I
> > would also suggest that:
> >
> > (a) All members have to explicitly apply for membership; while a
> > library using Evergreen would automatically qualify for membership,
> > they have to at least go to the effort of applying.
> > (b) Voting by proxy is forbidden; in particular, a consortium or
> > employer cannot register a vote on behalf of its member libraries or
> > employees.
> > (c) A consortium is forbidden from *requiring* its members to vote
> > in
> > any particular way via the member's agreement with the consortium or
> > through undue contractual pressure. A consortium is also forbidden
> > from contractually requiring that its members show up for votes.
> > This
> > does not rule out a consortium lobbying its members to establish a
> > unified voting bloc, but raises the bar sufficiently to prevent
> > abuse.
> >
> > > 4) agree members should approve members (but perhaps the Oversight
> > > Committee could have a role in the case of an appeal of the
> > > membership decision???)
> >
> > An appeal process is a good idea.
> >
> > > 5) agree that membership has to be for individuals because
> > > otherwise
> > > what happens when those individuals change affiliations? Seems
> > > like
> > > we need individual members plus institutional members but somehow
> > > ensure that an institution can't pay for a bunch of memberships in
> > > order to take over a vote.
> >
> > In my proposal above, no institution (be it a consortium, library,
> > or
> > vendor) would be able to have more than one institutional
> > membership.
> > The only way for an institution to gain (influence over) additional
> > members would be by employing more contributors or by expanding its
> > consortium.
> >
> > > 1) does it make sense in this day and age that you have to be
> > > present to vote? seems like it could be hardship for an
> > > international organization. Couldn't there be accommodations for
> > > absentee ballots?
> >
> > We're already pretty geographically distributed, so I am in favor of
> > structuring the rules so that foundation business is expected to be
> > conducted electronically. Even now, the only events where we could
> > expect a sizable number of members to be physically present would be
> > the Evergreen Conference and (for the moment) ALA Annual. I fully
> > expect that there will be multiple large Evergreen installations in
> > Europe in the next couple of years, which would make a physical
> > presence requirement even more untenable.
> >
> > > 2) 10% of members have to vote in a "Member requested referenced."
> > > Does this mean 10% of the people present at any given membership
> > > meeting? or 10% of all registered members? Seems potentially low
> > > or
> > > too high depending how you interpret it.
> >
> > In general, I am favor of structuring the rules so that
> >
> > (a) showing up (physically or virtually) to vote is rewarded
> > (b) if a member cannot be bothered to vote, they are ignored
> >
> > In the case of referenda, I would suggest going with an lower
> > threshold, say 2% of all registered member is sufficient to float a
> > referendum. For other votes, I think a combination of long notice
> > periods for formal votes (say, a minimum of two weeks) would allow
> > votes to be conducted with a relatively low quorum threshold.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Galen
> > --
> > Galen Charlton
> > VP, Data Services
> > Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
> > email: gmc at esilibrary.com
> > direct: +1 352-215-7548
> > skype: gmcharlt
> > web: http://www.esilibrary.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Evergreen-governance-l mailing list
> > Evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> > http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-governance-l
> _______________________________________________
> Evergreen-governance-l mailing list
> Evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-governance-l
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evergreen-governance-l mailing list
> Evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-governance-l