[Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

Yes, we need to decide if we are building on the original governance
document Sylvia prepared or the one Jim suggested as an alternative
approach.

I am in favor of continuing with Sylvia's document and leaving issues of
code committers and user groups out of it for now.  I have no objection to
leaving in the standing committees as they were described in that last
go-round.

Lori

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Amy Terlaga <terlaga at biblio.org> wrote:

>  Lori –
>
>
>
> Honestly, I’ve lost track of what it is we’re supposed to be disagreeing
> about.
>
>
>
> The Communications sub-committee is part of the Governance Committee, which
> is morphing into the Evergreen Foundation, right?
>
>
>
> So what you’re saying is – cut out all of the stuff about committees from
> the governance rules?  Are you saying that now that Communications has been
> legitimized, it can stand on its own and not report back to the Evergreen
> Foundation?  Or report back, but not have it defined anywhere that they
> should be reporting back?
>
>
>
> I’m not really sure what people are proposing at this point.
>
>
>
> Sorry – just trying to follow this…
>
> =======================
>
> 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
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* loriayre at gmail.com [mailto:loriayre at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Lori
> Bowen Ayre
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:35 PM
> *To:* Amy Terlaga; evergreen-governance-l
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes
>
>
>
> Amy,
>
>
>
> You said "........sometimes it's better to have somebody putting out
> guidelines for the community - right now we're all making it up as we go
> along and sometimes we're getting it wrong - and it repeats itself because
> we're all coming at it from different angles and there's no cohesion yet."
>
>
>
> As you know, and I will remind folks with this email, the Communication
> Committee does see its role as coming up with some guidelines about how to
> effectively communicate with the EG Community who may be relying on any
> number of communications vehicles: IRC, wiki, Blog, email lists, small email
> groups, private emails.
>
>
>
> Recognizing that that is an issue and helping to clarify what to post where
> depending on who you are trying to reach (for example) is a perfect task for
> our small, nimble, just-in-time committee.  We certainly don't need a
> Foundation to to control that sort of thing.  And I agree with Galen that it
> is important to figure this stuff out somewhat slowly and not make a big
> disruption in something that is generally working pretty well.
>
>
>
> And back to the core issue at hand....I think it is important to emphasize
> the point that the Foundation can be established in its limited role and we
> will continue to build appropriate instruments for communicating,
> organizing, and building.  Having a limited role for the initial Foundation
> won't stop us.  It simply gets one very important piece done.
>
>
>
> Someone (or two) pointed out the help we could get from the Conservancy on
> issues like "is that software product infringing on our GPL license" seem
> critical.  That exactly the kind of thing we need them for and why we also
> need a Foundation with an Oversight Board (can we just call it a Board,
> Oversight Board makes it sound like someone messed something up).
>
>
>
> Someone pointed out that once we have the Foundation, we can accept
> donations.  I know my organization (aka me) would donate and perhaps even
> donate annually or monthly!
>
>
>
> Someone else pointed out that many of these larger issues of dues,
> membership fees, and user groups should be taken to the larger community.
>  Certainly seems consistent with every bit of feedback I've ever received in
> my efforts to contribute to this community!  Talking at the Evergreen Conf
> seems like a perfect way to advance some of those other issues while drawing
> in more of the community into the discussion.
>
>
>
> In other words, I think the limited role of the Foundation is a good
> compromise.  It gets us quite far down the Evergreen infrastructure road and
> provides immediate benefits.  All of the other work that is underway will
> continue to build also.  And that certainly seems like a good thing.
>
>
>
> Lori
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Amy Terlaga <terlaga at biblio.org> wrote:
>
> ....sometimes it's better to have somebody putting out guidelines for the
> community - right now we're all making it up as we go along and sometimes
> we're getting it wrong - and it repeats itself because we're all coming at
> it from different angles and there's no cohesion yet:
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/private/evergreen-governance-l/attachments/20101021/32513fff/attachment.htm