[Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this

[Watson, Sylvia]

It appears that the focus is leaning toward giving developers and vendors a greater voice than the users.  It was my understanding that this organization was supposed to be a centralized organization where you can find everything related to Evergreen:  website, list serves, grant resources, technical help, code modifications, user support, keeper of Evergreen assets, branding & advertising, annual conference; activities that promote Evergreen use, etc.  Each area would presumably be handled by groups/committees with special expertise in a particular area, and of course all participants would be members.  Under this premise you have many more individuals making meaningful and beneficial contributions to the Evergreen project than just the developers and vendors.   

I understand that developers who are contributing to the code should have a strong voice.  However, shouldn't the users have a strong voice as well; especially as the user base continues to grow internationally and presumably becomes the primary source of revenue for the organization and is actively working to support Evergreen in the areas noted above?      

It seems to me that we need to find a way to make sure all members have a meaningful voice if we are going to have an all-encompassing organization such as noted in the first paragraph of the e-mail.  Of course, most of the above is moot if others were not thinking this was going to be an all-encompassing organization such as the one I described in the above.  

This brings me back to a question Jim Corridan asked yesterday, and that is: How will decisions about the code be handled?  Is the plan for determining modifications/updates/contributions to the Evergreen code always to remain separate and outside of the foundation purview?  If so, then I am unclear as to the basis for providing developers a greater voice in other Foundation matters?     

Is the purpose of the foundation intended to be much more limited in focus than what I noted in the first paragraph of this e-mail? 

Sylvia

-----Original Message-----
From: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Dan Scott
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:21 PM
To: Corridan, Jim (ICPR)
Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this

On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 11:49 -0400, Corridan, Jim (ICPR) wrote:
> So a library serving 15,000 people as a stand-alone installation of Evergreen would have the same vote as the 50 + Georgia Pines libraries or the 75 members of the Evergreen Indiana?

To go back to the membership structure I've suggested (with several
friendly amendments - thanks Lori and Galen et al), they would have
equal votes, _unless_ one of the sites has more people contributing
documentation or code or mailing list support or whatever. Those who put
in the most effort to improve Evergreen would be those who would have a
modicum more power - which has the twin results of placing an incentive
on contributing to the project, and putting that power in the hands of
those who are most closely associated with the project.

I really don't think size (either in number of libraries or population
served) should be a significant factor in distributing the control over
Evergreen's trademarks and community finances.

_______________________________________________
Evergreen-governance-l mailing list
Evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-governance-l