[Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes

Thu Oct 21 09:56:29 EDT 2010

I too can see both sides but am firmly in favour of starting the Foundation with "option 1".  We're not carving everything in stone and saying this is all we will do for now and forever.  Committees like communications, user groups, etc can all be formed as part of the work of the Foundation at the beginning.  We would do well to remember that we haven't been elected (not that there's anything wrong with what we're doing, someone had to get the ball rolling)... I'd like to see some more community involvement in all of the other stuff rather than us trying to carve it all out right at the start.  I think that stewarding the assets is the most important reason to get this Foundation up and running right now.  All of those other good purposes will come & they can come under the Foundation even if we don't do it all right now.
Regards, Cynthia
-----Original Message-----
From: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Sharp, Chris
Sent: October 21, 2010 9:28 AM
To: Jim Corridan (ICPR)
Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes

> 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.

For my part (and my opinions are my own here and in my previous email), I see that there are two positions coming about:

1. The Foundation should have a limited scope which is primarily to be steward over the community's assets.

2. The Foundation should be more expansive and encompass the perceived needs of the full community, including communications, coordination of development priorities, and many other important roles.

I see value in each position, and I think both positions represent the larger needs of the community.  I think the group has to decide which direction we want to go.  I think most of us on the committee envisioned option #2 from the beginning, but as we're finding out, we don't have much of a consensus about how option #2 would be best implemented, or even that it's still the best option.  If option #1 is the purpose of the foundation, however, I think we can still have a consolidated effort to address the other pieces that would be covered by option #2.

It's my instinct to seek a compromise position.  I'm open to either approach.

Chris Sharp
PINES Program Manager
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Suite 150
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
(404) 235-7147
csharp at georgialibraries.org
http://pines.georgialibraries.org/

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Corridan (ICPR)" <jcorridan at icpr.IN.gov>
> To: "Steve Wills" <steve.wills at lyrasis.org>, "Dan Scott" <dan at coffeecode.net>
> Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:37:08 AM
> 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
_______________________________________________
Evergreen-governance-l mailing list
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.