[Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this

Wed Sep 1 16:36:48 EDT 2010

Steve, 

I assume you meant this to go out to the group.  I think your comments are valuable and should be considered by all.  I'm hoping we can all be candid about our thoughts without the fear of offending a group member or having someone feel they are being personally attacked.  The more people speak up, the more it helps me determine the group consensus so I know what revisions to make to the rules. 

I don't think we should necessarily count out the third/original option which is to just not have dues at all and have the Finance and Fundraising Committee find alternative ways to finance Foundation activities.  All options should be considered, but I appreciate your point about "developers not wanting to pay for the privilege of programming for free."  That is definitely something that should be taken into consideration.

Sylvia

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Wills [mailto:steve.wills at lyrasis.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 4:06 PM
To: Watson, Sylvia
Subject: RE: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this

I hope this is received as constructive.  I fear it will sound awkward or petty and I sincerely do not mean to ruffle feathers by saying it.  I have been a member of a lot of open source projects.  Whether I have contributed a few patches and disappeared or have drunk the  kool-aid with the core community, the one constant is that the majority of the code hackers I know would balk at having to pay dues for the privilege of programming for free.  Many of those same people would and have donated both time and money to these projects as part of being welcomed, recognized and/or intellectually stimulated.

Once you start making exceptions, like for developers & writers, however, the slope gets slick quickly.  We need at least two classes of members; ones who pay dues and get something for doing that,  and ones who have chosen not to donate money but whose talents we will still gratefully accept and whose opinions we will continue to solicit.  The alternative, I suppose, is to define a procedure by which the membership can elect to waive someone's dues requirement.

Stev3

________________________________________
From: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Watson, Sylvia [sywatson at library.IN.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:40 PM
To: Amy Terlaga
Cc: evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this

Group:

Attached is the most recent version of the proposed governance rules.

I left the dues clause in but changed the majority vote to a vote of 2/3 of the board, if the board chooses to vote to require dues.

The numbering should be corrected in this version.

I did not make any changes to the board terms because I wasn't sure if the general consensus was to have term limits or not.  I also did not make the change back to having the board approve members as opposed to the membership, because I wasn't sure what the general consensus of the group was with regard to this point as well.  We've had people come in on both side for both of the above issues.

I incorporated the additional criteria in Article II, Section 2.1 (eligibility:

"(vi)    significant participation in project communication venues (mailing lists, IRC channels,
       forums, conference calls);
(vii)    hosting or significant participation in a conference planning committee; or
(viii) significantly contributing to the promotion of Evergreen to the larger library and ILS community."

However, I would like to point out that the criteria in (vi) is vague and leaves a lot of the discretion as to what is considered a substantial contribution in the hands of the members.  Maybe that is intentional, I don't know.

Also, what if someone was on the conference planning committee for one year, and was very active.  They would then be awarded membership based on that, even if they never do anything again.  Now that I think about it, we could have this issue with some of the other criteria as well.  I wonder if membership should be periodically evaluated to ensure 2,3,5 years down the road, the member is still contributing???  Is the thought that once a member stops contributing, they will stop participating in voting and committees, on boards, etc?  Does contributing once earn lifetime membership?  I don't think we have addressed whether membership is for life or an annual occurrence.  I would assume if the board decides to charge dues, membership would be evaluated annually when people submit the dues, but this could get messy if memberships are also going through initial approval year round as well.  Are there any thoughts on this?

Sylvia

-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Terlaga [mailto:terlaga at biblio.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 2:58 PM
To: Watson, Sylvia
Cc: Galen Charlton; evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this

Jeez, I don't know. One of the problems we're having is the whole conference issue.  Since we don't know yet if the foundation will be handling financial responsibility for the conferences, the dues issue is still a question mark I guess.

But if the foundation does take on the conference stuff, I'd feel better about having dues.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 1, 2010, at 2:41 PM, "Watson, Sylvia" <sywatson at library.IN.gov> wrote:

> So, is the general consensus that I need to remove the clause on dues altogether, or require 2/3 vote of the board or require membership vote?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sylvia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Galen Charlton [mailto:gmc at esilibrary.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 2:28 PM
> To: Watson, Sylvia
> Cc: Lori Bowen Ayre; Williamson, Cynthia; evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> Subject: Re: [Evergreen-governance-l] FW: Be sure to do this
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Watson, Sylvia wrote:
>> Just as an FYI, I added a sentence that provides that membership is determined by majority vote of all submitted member responses.  That way, if half the members don't respond, the proposed member is not denied because of a lack of majority vote of the membership.
>
> I am in favor of this change.
>
>> This is assuming we keep the members in charge of approving memberships, an issue that I understand may not be resolved.
>
> I am in favor of having members approve membership.
>
> Regards,
>
> Galen
> --
> Galen Charlton
> VP, Data Services
> Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
> email:  gmc at esilibrary.com
> direct: +1 352-215-7548
> skype:  gmcharlt
> web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evergreen-governance-l mailing list
> Evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-governance-l