[Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

 I vote we get back to the version of the document that said the Board could
establish membership fees (rather than trying to tackle that now).

I think if we made it easy for people to make small contributions AND we
work on sponsorships, we could get some money in.  And plus we have the
conference money that needs a place to live.  So it would be great to get
this first piece finalized.

And, I would be happy to help with finding sponsors.  I sold an amazing
number of girl scout cookies back in the day.

Lori

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Williamson, Cynthia <
cynthia.williamson at mohawkcollege.ca> wrote:

>  I too agree that we should go back to the original document & leave in
> the standing committees.  The only real question outstanding for me right
> now is membership dues???  I argued against them yesterday and still lean
> towards no fees, but I can see the value of having some money - who can’t?
> J I like the idea of sponsorships & donations.  Is this something that
> could be explored once the foundation is up and running?
>
> Cynthia
>
>
>
> *From:* evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:
> evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori
> Bowen Ayre
> *Sent:* October 21, 2010 1:02 PM
> *To:* Amy Terlaga
> *Cc:* evergreen-governance-l
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes
>
>
>
> 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:
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/private/evergreen-governance-l/attachments/20101021/0a2beb11/attachment-0001.htm