[Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Governance Rules - Revised Draft

[Watson, Sylvia]

Lori,

I'm not opposed to adding the Documentation Interest Group as a standing committee if that is what the group thinks is appropriate.  For the purpose of adding this group as a standing committee, would you say that the following should be listed in the governance rules as the committee's focus areas:  "Develop Evergreen documentation framework; Assess existing documentation and current needs; and Produce and manage documentation."

Staggering the board terms is designed to keep some consistency on the board to protect against 100% turnover on the board at the same time.  While board members could be re-elected indefinitely, there is no guarantee that this will happen and my thoughts are that we should protect the Foundation against the possibility of 100% turnover all at once?  Again, we can change this if the consensus is that one year board terms and no staggering of board terms makes more sense.

Sylvia

From: loriayre at gmail.com [mailto:loriayre at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Lori Bowen Ayre
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:19 PM
To: Watson, Sylvia
Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Governance Rules - Revised Draft

Hi Sylvia,

I like the changes!  Sorry I didn't get back to you about the committees.  My take is that DIG (Documentation Interest Group) should probably be a standing committee instead of an interest group. I don't know about reports.  Seems like maybe that isn't needed in the governance documents (this may apply to documentation too honestly).

As for staggered terms for board members, since we aren't limiting terms, do we really need to worry about staggering at all?

Thanks again for all your work on this.

Lori Ayre
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Watson, Sylvia <sywatson at library.in.gov<mailto:sywatson at library.in.gov>> wrote:
By the way, I caught the numbering issue in Article II.

Thanks,
Sylvia
From: Watson, Sylvia
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:03 PM
To: 'evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org>'
Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org>
Subject: RE: [Evergreen-governance-l] Governance Rules - Revised Draft


Group:



I read through all the comments and think I have addressed pretty much everything in the attached revised draft of the Evergreen Software Foundation Rules of Governance.  Admittedly, I am still somewhat confused on the general consensus of how membership and voting would be addressed. Please advise if the changes do not reflect the intent of the group's comments.  I clicked "Track Changes" so that everyone can locate the changes easily without re-reading the entire document.  Although the changes have been "tracked", I have also outlined most of them below:





*         Added a fiscal year provision

*         Oversight Board composition is modified to reflect that certain representation is preferred as opposed to required

*         Deleted the technology committee

*         Eliminated limits on how long a person can serve on the board

*         Changed the referendum request to require 2% of the registered members as opposed to 10% of the membership body

*         Changed the special meeting request to require 2% of the registered members as opposed to 10% of the membership body

*         Clarified that Oversight Board meetings and special membership meetings may be held electronically

*         Required notice of board meetings and Member meetings to be delivered via e-mail

*         Added a provision that provided that the Vice Chairperson will have first consideration for the office of the Chairperson in the election the following year of the two year period.  As a reminder, board terms are two years and officers on the board serve one year terms.  Because the two year terms are staggered, we cannot really mandate that the Vice Chair be the next Chairperson because the Vice Chair elected may only have that current year left to serve on the board.  Someone suggested changing board terms to one year periods.  I did not make this change because two-year terms are needed for the purpose of staggering board members.  I assume we want to set up board membership so that there will never be a year when the entire board could possibly be replaced.  Staggering the board promotes consistency and stability.  However, I will change this if people feel very strongly that board terms should be for one year.

*         Revised membership eligibility; procedures; added appeal procedures, etc. based on e-mail comments

*         Added option for incorporating dues

*         Clarified one vote per member; no voting by proxy; added in option for creating remote voting procedures



There was mention of possibly including two additional committees (reports & DIG), but I didn't know if those should be listed in the governance rules as standing committees.



Please advise of any further revisions needed.



Sylvia





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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/private/evergreen-governance-l/attachments/20100831/b2b72777/attachment-0001.htm