[Evergreen-governance-l] ***SPAM*** RE: For today's discussion about eligibility

[Williamson, Cynthia]

Hi All

First - Dan thanks for the work with conservancy - this is just great for us.



Now onto our membership criteria discussion, thought I'd get that ball rolling ....

Lori - the grid really helped me, thanks,  if we're going to have some kind of committee to oversee/approve membership applications, something like this will be very helpful. I've been thinking that we're over-complicating the membership thing, but I can see that it is complicated when you start looking at all the possible scenarios.  ....  It seems to me that when we talk about consortia & vendors we go towards one set of criteria  and if we think about individuals and single libraries, we'd lean towards a different set of criteria.  I think I'm more in favour of individual contributions being the criteria for membership as opposed to a fee structure, no doubt due to my status as working in a stand alone, do-it ourselves EG implementation...but I'm trying to also see it from a vendor and consortia perspective too.   Lori is right, we want libraries to stand up and start getting involved, I worry that a fee structure will discourage that.  If I think about Mohawk's scenario, I know my boss wouldn't want to write a cheque to the Evergreen Foundation (I guess it could happen if it wasn't too much) but currently, she is happy to let both Robert and I do EG community work during our regular work day. Not sure she'd be so happy to let us use company time if we were also paying a membership.  I'd hate to see that kind of trade off happen.  If I ask why a library or a consortium or a vendor would need a membership, I answer (not aloud, don't worry) - a person would still have to represent them right?  So why not just go with individual memberships?  Not trying to centre anyone out, but real situations help me here ....Someone like Amy would qualify by virtue of her participation in the community right now plus her representation of the Bibliomation libraries. Other Bibliomation staff who work on EG would/could also qualify.  Dan qualifies as a developer, whoever the current Conifer project manager is would also qualify as representing the Conifer libraries. Robert and I would probably both qualify right now in future perhaps only of us a Mohawk's "rep".  We have a new  consortium in Niagara, right now they aren't contributing a lot to the community but someone would qualify as representing the consortium.  Obviously lots of folks at Equinox would qualify, that's just our reality right now, most of our developers happen to work for a vendor. I understand that we want folks to actively contribute but I'm afraid if our criteria are too stringent or fees are too high we'll kill the community instead of grow it. Some of those Niagara folks just might want to help with documentation or testing, why would we implement fees that might discourage that?? If I continue down this road, I get to a point where I can see anyone working in an EG library being eligible (and then we're back to Amy's scenario of 70 votes for bibliomation) I suppose at some point the line has to be drawn between the foundation and general EG community. Is it just too simple to have a fairly open set of criteria for foundation membership and save our more stringent criteria for the Board? Could we use Lori's grid and just a more weighted or higher level of involvement for Board members? I know the argument has been made that we don't want to set up the Board to fail by making strict rules but really, the same thing can be said of the general foundation membership too.

Regards, Cynthia



________________________________________

From: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org> [evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Lori Ayre [loriayre at gmail.com]

Sent: October 19, 2010 12:50 PM

To: evergreen-governance-l

Subject: [Evergreen-governance-l] For today's discussion about eligibility



Hi All,



Anticipating that we will be trying to focus on Eligibility issues, I put together the attached document that we may be able to use to try to sort through the issues.



The top of the document is a grid showing the different ways one can be eligible (drawn MOSTLY from the current draft but I did add on explicitly for 'vendors').



Most useful to our discussion are the scenarios that I put together below the grid.



Check it out. If it is useful, we can use it today.



________________________________
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/private/evergreen-governance-l/attachments/20101020/bc0f3417/attachment-0001.htm