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

Tue Aug 31 16:33:15 EDT 2010

On this membership question:

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

I meant to bring this up earlier, but forgot.  Are we sure we want the
membership to approve all other incoming members?

I'm concerned that that would be an administrative nightmare and would hold
up the membership process unnecessarily.

What's wrong with the criteria that have already been defined in the bylaws
for membership approval?  There are some areas where I think the Board,
acting on behalf of the larger body, should be charged with making prudent
decisions such as membership acceptance or denial.

Section 2.1 (Eligibility).

(a)    Membership shall be open to any group, organization, business,
library district/system (regardless of membership in a consortium), so long
as that group, organization, business, library district/system or individual
is an active Evergreen user or developer. 

(b)   Membership shall also be open to any individual Evergreen programmer
or developer who is unassociated with a Member entity,

(c)    Groups, organizations, businesses, library districts/systems, or
individuals that wish to become recognized as a Member shall submit to the
Oversight Board Secretary the name of the individual or entity that wishes
to join the Foundation as well as contact information for the designated
person who will receive notices and correspondence from the Foundation and
who will be eligible to vote on behalf of the individual or entity.     

(d)   The Oversight Board shall be responsible for approving Foundation
memberships.

=======================

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

  _____  

From: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
[mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf
Of Lori Bowen Ayre
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 3:40 PM
To: Karen Collier
Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Governance Rules - Revised Draft

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/20100831/695c5154/attachment-0001.htm 