[Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

I'm in favor of Dan's more limited (and crucial) role for the Foundation.

I'm pretty sure the Foundation shouldn't have a say in who gets to commit
code.  That's the job of the existing code committers who must be able to
establish trust in each other to work effectively.  I cannot imagine a
scenario where the existing team of code committers would WANT to allow
someone into their world and we (the Foundation) would have a reason to say
no.  So having the developers ask the Oversight Board when they can invite
someone in seems like a pretty paternalistic role that wouldn't go over well
with our developers.

*Maybe* there is a role for the Oversight Board to arbitrate a decision in
which the Committers denied access to a would-be-Committer. But even there,
I'd say "arbitrate" versus override a decision would be the wise course.

I CAN imagine the Foundation recognizing that money needed to be raised to
fund development that would help the product (e.g. fund something that is
some internal component that will make all the difference but since it isn't
a sexy feature, no one is sponsoring that development). That seems like an
appropriate role for the Foundation members.

I'm wondering if what you are really feeling is needed is more transparency
about how enhancement requests and new feature decisions get made, how
long-term development decisions are made, and how the user community can
influence those decisions.  I think everyone wants that. But I think that's
a separate discussion.

Attached is an interesting article documenting how Mozilla and Apache
operate.  I think we are more like the Apache example than the Mozilla
example. It is a useful read because you can see the unique relationship of
developers to the community.  And it is very different from any model any of
us has likely dealt with before...

Lori


On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Corridan, Jim (ICPR) <jcorridan at icpr.in.gov
> wrote:

> Dan
>
> Would that mean that Equinox and their contractors control/authorize the
> code?  Each independent consortia or library is disconnected from any
> unified Evergreen, and theoretically someone would donate money to support
> the fostering and protection of Evergreen assets.  I'd like to aim for more
> and I guess I have a different vision, one where there is some structure,
> though not necessarily tremendous authority, that can pull the community
> together and communicate effectively to all interested entities.
>
> Do we think it would be best over time to have a limited foundation, a
> separate international users group will likely develop, and a third group
> doing code committing? Personally, I prefer a unified governance structure
> than potentially multiple separate and competing entities.
>
> Jim
> ________________________________________
> From: Dan Scott [dan at coffeecode.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 5:14 PM
> To: Corridan, Jim (ICPR)
> Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/private/evergreen-governance-l/attachments/20101020/f8b31bea/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenSourceSoftwareDevelopment-ApacheMozilla.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 373101 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/private/evergreen-governance-l/attachments/20101020/f8b31bea/attachment-0001.pdf