[Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes

[Amy Terlaga]

I'm wondering if there could be some middle ground we could find on this.

I'm not sure what that middle ground would be at this point, but I would
like to explore it more.

I do think that Jim is right in that if we keep the role of the Foundation
small, we'll need (or some other entity will need) to develop something else
to deal with some of the other community issues.  In other words, if we keep
it small (simplifying the Foundation's role), we're just kicking the can
down the road for others to pick up.

I know that I come from a place that focuses strongly on user group issues -
and maybe that was a mistake to try to roll those issues into the
Foundation's purpose.  

And with the dues issue, I do think that there needs to be some $$ coming in
- at the very least so that there's $$ there to contribute to the SFC.  I
also think that Board liability insurance is still a good idea, even if the
Foundation's role is kept to just keeper of the code.

I don't think we'll get this resolved over email.

=======================
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
-----Original Message-----
From: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
[mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf
Of Corridan, Jim (ICPR)
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:37 AM
To: Steve Wills; Dan Scott
Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes

Obviously I have failed to communicate clearly.  

For the purpose of clarity, I have not suggested "control and authorization
of the code" as a foundation purpose or goal.  I have not suggested
nefarious behavior on the part of Equinox, nor do I believe it. I did not
suggest there could only be one users group.  

It seems many in the group would like to start small. I believe the result
will be multiple entities developing to fill the needs of the community,
which will create additional problems and further complicate communications.
Guess we'll see what happens.    

Jim

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Wills [mailto:steve.wills at lyrasis.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:56 AM
To: Corridan, Jim (ICPR); Dan Scott
Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: RE: [Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes

I think it is important for the community in general to understand what
"control and authorization of the code" really means and why the board would
want to be involved that that.  

A bit of history:  When I joined NELINET, now LYRASIS, the folks I reported
to perceived Equinox as "in control of and unwilling to cooperate" with
other members of the community.  This is what I was presented with and
taught a little over a year ago.

My job requires me to bounce from Evergreen to dSpace to Drupal and a few
other assorted Open Source packages on an almost daily basis.  This means
that I have ONLY logged a little more than four months of solid Evergreen
development effort to the community by supporting the Balsam Consortium in
Maine.  In contrast, Equinox has a dedicated team of Evergreen support and
development engineers focused on the software on a daily basis.  Therein
lies the real imbalance within my organization, at any rate.  Let's get
real.

During this year (in elapsed time), I have discovered for myself that while
Equinox has an accomplished and competitive marketing team, they have also
been completely forthcoming in their voluntary support of my growth as a
developer in the community.  Dan S. has also set me back on track countless
times when I have wandered too far away from core EG.

I offer that history because I think we, as a community, need to understand
what level of control and authorization we are really looking for and why we
are seeking it.  I tease Dan, Bill, Mike, Galen, Scott, and Jason (who did I
miss?) of being "long-tooths", but the fact is that they are.  Evergreen
code is complex and requires dedicated developers managing it at the core
level.  I am not a strong enough evergreen developer to be trusted to check
in code "willy nilly" without some kind of review process which would come
from the guys mentioned above.

Myself, Ben S., Dan Wells, Tom B., Anoop, who else? are all highly qualified
as well.  A lot of us now are coming up fast behind Dan S., Bill, Mike (et.
al)  It is probably worth having the board survey the 2nd tier guys to make
sure we all feel supported and able to contribute, but I suspect the results
of the poll would be that we are just fine.

Long story short, I have lived though an organized perception that access to
EG Core was unbalanced and am firmly on the other side of that concern.  I
think the other 2nd tier devs would tell you the same.

Before the Foundation solves this problem, let's double check that there is
one?   That said, a lot of us maintain our own local checkout of trunk.  The
day we are cut off from EG code, there will be 25 forks ready to go.  The
Foundation really doesn't need to worry about access to the code.

I hope this rant helps in some small way.
Stev3
________________________________________
From: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
[evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of
Corridan, Jim (ICPR) [jcorridan at icpr.IN.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:29 PM
To: Dan Scott
Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes

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
_______________________________________________
Evergreen-governance-l mailing list
Evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-governance-l