[Evergreen-governance-l] Draft rules of governance for a more focused Foundation

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

Sylvia,

Thanks for bringing up these issues.  As a Communications Committee member,
it certainly concerns me that people are not finding the mailing list or
perhaps if they do see, they don't necessarily know that this is the primary
vehicle for communication.  The notices to the IRC channel are another
option for communication that you might have noticed but don't necessarily
understand can be critical for reaching certain key members of the community
(e.g. developers!).  So, believe me, this issue is high on our list of
issues to address and I appreciate you making that point so clearly.

As to unanimous versus super-majority, I see what you mean and I wouldn't be
opposed to changing the language to super-majority even as it pertains to
the rules of governance.  I can't presume to believe we've figure all of
this out so having the ability to modify if necessary might be a good thing
even if one person didn't feel the need to change anything.

Lori

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Watson, Sylvia <sywatson at library.in.gov>wrote:

>  Without commenting one way or the other on the substance of Dan’s
> proposal, I would like to ask a few questions and make one comment.
>
>
>
> How does one get onto the Evergreen general mailing list?  Who controls the
> mailing list and are comments moderated; if so, by whom?  I’m not trying to
> imply anything, I’m just genuinely curious.  Other than Galen and Dan, are
> the governance committee members on the Evergreen mailing list?  I know the
> Indiana members are not and did not even know about the e-mail list until
> recently.  What would be the plan to ensure that all the various interested
> stakeholders know of this list so they can participate in the board
> nominations and voting if they so choose?  Is it every Evergreen community
> member for him/herself to figure it out or will someone be responsible for
> outreach and getting the word out about the e-mail list?
>
>
>
> I would also like to express a point of view regarding the requirement of
> unanimous votes.  Requiring unanimous votes gives a lot of power to one
> individual on the board/committee.  Which means the majority’s will is not
> always done.  Rather, the minority has total control.  What if 6 of the 7
> board members want to expand the purview (stated purpose in the bylaws) of
> the Foundation, but the 7th doesn’t.  That one person has the ability to
> stand in the way of the Foundation’s forward progress.  I understand the
> goal is to prevent abuse, but I would argue that abuse is more likely to
> occur if one person has that much power.  The requirement of a supermajority
> is, in my opinion, sufficient to represent the will of the Evergreen
> community and inhibit abuse.  As Dan points out, these people have been
> voted in by the community and, theoretically, collectively represent the
> will of the community.
>
>
>
> There are a number of us representing competing interests and because of
> that the group has been unable to come to a unanimous consensus on several
> important issues.  I would argue that the only way you are going to get
> unanimous votes or unanimous consensus on major issues is if you have all
> members of like minds, and if that is the case then the board/committee is
> likely not representative of the various stakeholders.
>
>
>
> Sylvia
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/evergreen-governance-l/attachments/20101022/be5a3022/attachment.htm