[Evergreen-governance-l] Phone Call re: Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement

[Dan Scott]

On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 11:36:21AM -0500, Watson, Sylvia wrote:
> In Indiana, state employees generally cannot be held personally
> responsible for actions taken in good faith in the course of
> employment.  I think most states have a similar provision in their
> laws but those of you in other states may want to double check if this
> is a concern.    In the event of a dispute between the Evergreen
> Oversight Board and the Conservancy, the Oversight Board members who
> signed the agreement in an individual capacity can be held personally
> responsible.

That's good to know. Do we have any likely scenarios for disputes
between the Evergreen Oversight Board and the Conservancy in mind? Am
I wrong in thinking that the likelihood of a dispute is increased by
having members signing on behalf of entire library systems and
companies, rather than a group composed of individual members of the
Evergreen community who just want to do their best to help the Evergreen
project thrive?

> In the case of Indiana, Jim Corridan is signing as a representative of
> the Indiana State Library so that he can be a voice for the many
> Indiana libraries that are using Evergreen, including the Indiana
> State Library.   The Indiana State Library is coordinating the efforts
> to get Evergreen in use potentially in all libraries state wide.
> Thus, the Indiana State Library has significant interest in what
> happens with the Evergreen Project.   Jim is involved in this project
> as a result of his employment with the State of Indiana so it makes
> sense that he would sign any Evergreen related agreements in his
> official capacity as a state employee.

This is where the difference between signing as an individual and
signing as a representative of a larger organization is a bit weird to
me.

Jim is signing so that he can help further the goals of the project ("to
produce, distribute, document, and improve software that can be freely
copied, modified and redistributed by the general public (“Free
Software”), and to facilitate and organize its production, improvement
and ease of use") and not just as a requirement of his job to ensure
that Indiana's Evergreen-using libraries are heard on the oversight
board, right? I'm sure those interests largely align, but perhaps
something like "so that he can further the goals of the Evergreen
project on behalf of the many Indiana libraries..." would have made me
feel a bit more at ease.

I probably worry too much.