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

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

Three points:

1) Regarding any standing committees, it is probably best to leave it out of
the documents if we aren't sure.

2) In terms of defining contribution, I would like to suggest the following
additions to Section 2.1(a).

(vi) significant participation in project communication venues (mailing
lists, IRC channels, forums, conference calls)
(vii) hosting or significant participation in a conference planning
committee
(viii) significantly contributing to the promotion of Evergreen to the
larger library and ILS community

3) can I assume membership is approved by a simple majority?

Lori Ayre

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Karen Collier <kcollier at kent.lib.md.us>wrote:

> As DIG Facilitator, I would hesitate to recommend absorbing the
> Documentation Interest Group into the foundation as a formal committee
> without discussing this with existing DIG participants.  I wonder what would
> be the pros, cons, and alternatives to becoming a committee and how it would
> affect the day to day operation of DIG.  Does anyone have any thoughts on
> this?  I apologize that I haven't had a chance to read the entire Governance
> Rules yet.  Things have been unusually crazy at work for the last couple of
> weeks, thanks to recent leadership changes.
>
> Thanks,
> Karen
>
>
> ----- "Sylvia Watson" <sywatson at library.IN.gov> wrote:
>
>  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>
> 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'
> *Cc:* 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
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Karen Collier
> Public Services Librarian
> Kent County Public Library
> 408 High Street
> Chestertown, MD 21620
> 410-778-3636
> www.kentcountylibrary.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/private/evergreen-governance-l/attachments/20100831/8ba02848/attachment.htm