[Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes

[Amy Terlaga]

There's a thought.  That would simplify things considerably.  

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Dan Scott <dan at coffeecode.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:05:05PM -0400, Corridan, Jim (ICPR) wrote:
>> Governance Group:
>> 
>> Attached is a revision of the Rules of Governance.  The revisions reflect comments from the two most recent meetings and an attempt to have the Foundation serve as the single unified organization for Evergreen.  In addition to some minor language clean up, the major changes to this version of the Rules of Governance are:
>> 
>> *       Clarification that one of the Foundation's purposes is to serve as the community's user's group
>> *       A dues structure has been added.  The dues are low enough ($10 for individuals and $100 for institutions) that contributors should not balk at having to pay to support the foundation, whether that contributor is a board member, developer, committee member, library, etc.
>> *       A Code Committing Committee has been added in recognition of the comments made by the Software Conservancy (about Equinox) and various governance committee members in recent meetings, so that the Foundation will have some input with regard to Evergreen code
>> *       Membership is open to anyone who wants to join and is willing to pay the membership fee.
>> *       Eligibility criteria for board membership now includes the language that was originally required for Evergreen Foundation Membership.
>> 
>> Probably by December we need to come to some sort of agreement so that we have an authoritative board with an established Chairperson who will have the authority to sign the agreement with SFC on behalf of the Foundation, and also so there is time to get the committees up and running in preparation for the elections at the annual meeting, among other things.  Let's keep in mind that the board (both the Initial Board and regular Oversight Board) does have the power to modify the Rules of Governance in the immediate and long term future if something isn't working.
>> 
> 
> These are significant changes, and I don't agree with them. I have a
> counter proposal; I suggest we pare down the scope of the Foundation to
> just one purpose:
> 
>  * foster and protect the Evergreen assets
> 
> If the Foundation holds the trademarks, domain names, and some
> copyright for those individuals / institutions that wish to transfer
> their copyright, and it is under the umbrella of the Conservancy, then
> no single organization can hijack the project - and that's the primary
> concern, right?
> 
> Beyond that, I think we've fallen victim to scope creep. Every other
> goal currently claimed by the rules of governance could and should
> happen outside of the Foundation.
> 
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Evergreen-governance-l mailing list
> Evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-governance-l