[Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes

Thu Oct 21 14:08:52 EDT 2010

RE:  Dues

I'm fine with tabling that for now, but I wouldn't want anything in the
governance rules that would eliminate the possibility of adding them at a
later date.

=======================

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: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
[mailto:evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf
Of Lori Bowen Ayre
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 2:02 PM
To: Williamson, Cynthia; evergreen-governance-l
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] Proposed New Governance Changes

 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? :-) 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/20101021/1963d058/attachment-0001.htm 