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

Tue Aug 31 21:53:10 EDT 2010

I agree that development can't be tied up in bureaucracy, I think that is what I was trying to say earlier. I agree with Elizabeth when she said that one focus of the Foundation should be encouraging new developer talent.  I hear what Jim is saying - that we don't need oversight of features and enhancements.   I wasn't thinking "oversight" but more along Elizabeth's notion of "promotion".
I guess part of our problem is that we are trying to impose structure on something that already exists and is functioning well for the most part but in a way that doesn't totally/exactly fit into the structure we're attempting to create.
I think we have digressed a bit & I'm not sure of our exact stumbling point -  if we relate this thread back to our document, are we clarifying membership rules or a separate function of the board/foundation around getting code committed? Both?  Are we almost in agreement on most things?
I should have said up front that most of the document is great and I appreciate the work done on it and the short time in which it was put together.
Cynthia

________________________________________
From: loriayre at gmail.com [loriayre at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Lori Bowen Ayre [lori.ayre at galecia.com]
Sent: August 31, 2010 6:56 PM
To: Amy Terlaga
Cc: Corridan, Jim (ICPR); Williamson, Cynthia; McKinney, Elizabeth; evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this

As soon as we set up an external body to determine how development happens or which development efforts should have priority, we turn ourselves into a bureaucracy.  This is very different from an open source, community-based project that relies on people "scratching their itch."

I will suggest again that we think about finding some principles that we (users and developers) all agree upon but stay very far away from moving in the direction of mixing up Foundation responsibilities (protection of the Evergreen community's assets) with setting development priorities.

I think this thinking arises from the current situation in which we are relying on such a small developer community. But this won't always be the case (from my lips to God's ear?).

Besides, does anyone really want the Foundation or Oversight Board to decide who's development project is more important?  And if the answer is yes, where does the money to implement the Foundation or Oversight's decision come from?

Lori

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Amy Terlaga <terlaga at biblio.org<mailto:terlaga at biblio.org>> wrote:
Hmm, I’m not sure how that would work exactly:

>Someone has to make a determination that new development “X” should be added to the core of Evergreen.

Basically, I want everything added to Evergreen as long as it doesn’t break the functionality of the code and I have the option to NOT use it.

Beyond that, it’s all good.

I’m wondering if we’re getting into another area of discussion – the need for some kind of a release manager.  I’ve said this before in another meeting – I think that has to come out of the developer community itself.  We could make some recommendations, I suppose … Not sure what our role should be.  I recognize the issue, just not sure how we address it and how big a role the Foundation would play.

Having an informal discussion with all current Evergreen developers would be helpful.
=======================
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> [mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org>] On Behalf Of Corridan, Jim (ICPR)
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:23 PM
To: Williamson, Cynthia; Lori Bowen Ayre; McKinney, Elizabeth

Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org>
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this

Cynthia

Someone has to make a determination that new development “X” should be added to the core of Evergreen.  Galen and Dan have argued against having a Technology Committee, therefore the default would be the Governance Committee.  I agree the Governance Committee may lack the expertise to make those decisions, which is why the Technology Committee was proposed – to recommend approval of code commits.  The language for the Tech Committee may not have been drafted well, but that was the purpose.

I don’t think anyone is advocating that enhancements and developments need to be approved by some central authority.  They have successfully been occurring organically.  Here the issue is the desire for decision-makers and developers to know who is working on what so that others may join in funding, providing input, or writing code to assist the effort.

Jim

From: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org> [mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org>] On Behalf Of Williamson, Cynthia
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:06 PM
To: Lori Bowen Ayre; McKinney, Elizabeth
Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org>
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this

Thank you Elizabeth, I have been following the discussion and have not really been sure how to chime in.  Your words sound exactly right to me - we are in new territory here and building in some flexibility for varying perspectives is difficult.  And Lori’s words around the importance of promotion are also very important.  And as for rewarding significant participation with voting rights, I don’t see how you couldn’t include development in that definition, without the developers we’re nowhere, there’s nothing to build or promote.

The other thing that occurs to me is that perhaps we’re stuck on the word “coding”?  I may be way off here but stick with me … I don’t see how the executive of the governance committee could possibly approve code of any kind - perhaps that’s not what’s being suggested but just to make my point…Approving and committing code will always be in the hands of the developers.  While I am completely awed by the development process, I cannot possibly give an opinion about how it gets done, but I, and no doubt most of us,do have opinions on what features and enhancements are important. Perhaps we should be thinking about or saying “features and enhancements” rather than code when we’re thinking/talking governance?   If we use those words does it help anyone?  Am I just muddying things further?

Regards, Cynthia

From: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org> [mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org>] On Behalf Of Lori Bowen Ayre
Sent: August 31, 2010 3:48 PM
To: McKinney, Elizabeth
Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org>
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this

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<mailto: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<mailto:emckinney at georgialibraries.org>
http://www.georgialibraries.org/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sylvia Watson" <sywatson at library.IN.gov<mailto:sywatson at library.IN.gov>>
To: "Dan Scott" <dan at coffeecode.net<mailto:dan at coffeecode.net>>, "Jim Corridan (ICPR)" <jcorridan at icpr.IN.gov<mailto:jcorridan at icpr.IN.gov>>
Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org>
http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-governance-l

________________________________
This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended
only for the individual or entity named in the message. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible
to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please
notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy
the original message.

This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended
only for the individual or entity named in the message.  If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible
to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is prohibited.  If this communication was received in error, please
notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy
the original message.