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

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

Elizabeth,

Did you have a specific recommendation in mind?  I'd like to hear it if you
do.

What I  see evolving is a system that encourages participation.  I think it
is important that we interpret "siginficant participation" broadly and
reward that significant participation with voting rights.  But those voting
rights have to do with governance of assets more not developing code.

Development can't really be separated from funding.  Unless we have a system
for paying everyone who develops, we can't really tell the whole development
team what to do.  What gets done evolves organically based on library
priorities (I REALLY want this feature so I'm going to find a way to fund
it).

I think what we might be able to agree upon is some principles about how
development decisions are made... might that get at what you are concerned
about?

Lori

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:31 PM, McKinney, Elizabeth <
emckinney at georgialibraries.org> wrote:

> It looks like we need to further define membership/membership levels and
> what their respective voting powers would be as per section 2.1.
>
> Sylvia said: "It appears that the focus is leaning toward giving developers
> and vendors a greater voice than the users."
> Dan said: "Those who put in the most effort to improve Evergreen would be
> those who would have a modicum more power <snip> "
>
> We all want the same thing: a product that gives us great flexibility to
> serve our library staff/library patron base in terms of functionality,
> support and service. However, we are all coming to the table with widely
> varying perspectives on what is best for the community and how to achieve
> that.
>
>
> Sylvia said: "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?"
>
> The community should have some voice in what goes into the final product.
>  Of course, specific code should be reviewed by senior developers before it
> goes into the final product. Part of the "foundation's" charge should be to
> encourage growth in the developer/code committer pool. Equinox and Dan Scott
> cannot possibly handle development and code oversight for all future
> potential Evergreen users. My point is: we have to plan and prepare for
> growth.  And we need some checks in place to be sure the developers
> priorities are in line with the needs of the larger community while allowing
> them creative freedom at the same time.
>
> I don't think we need to take a cookie cutter route that looks solely at
> other software projects. We must consider the library community and
> structure the community entity around all groups of interest.  While we do
> need to look at other open source projects for guidance, we are in uncharted
> territory for the library community. This is something that we have learned
> with PINES.
>
> One quick word about specifics of the Rules of Governance.  I would highly
> recommend term limits through our own experience here in Georgia.  Perhaps a
> long term such as 5 years would help with consistency. I am also in favor of
> staggering the appointments.
>
> Perhaps I will put membership definition on the agenda for our next
> meeting.  We can work on membership levels at the subsequent meeting.
>
> Elizabeth McKinney
> PINES Program Director
> Georgia Public Library Service
> A Unit of the University System of Georgia
> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150
> Atlanta GA 30345
> 404.235.7141
> emckinney at georgialibraries.org
> http://www.georgialibraries.org/
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sylvia Watson" <sywatson at library.IN.gov>
> To: "Dan Scott" <dan at coffeecode.net>, "Jim Corridan (ICPR)" <
> jcorridan at icpr.IN.gov>
> Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 1:59:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/private/evergreen-governance-l/attachments/20100831/eaecde9f/attachment-0001.htm