[Evergreen-governance-l] Basic rules of governance draft

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

Dan,

Minor correction.  In 2.5, you say "Foundation Board" instead of just
"Board."

In Section 2.6 " "A majority of the Board constitutes a quorum for the
transaction of business. " confuses me.  Does this mean we have to have at
least half plus one of EVERYONE on the Board in attendance to make a
decision?  And then if we do, majority rules?

Jim, I don't see any conflict with 1.3 and 2.1.  I read that as the
committees are empowered to make decisions but can call on the Board if they
need help.

This does suggest that we might need to (eventually) determine how these
committees are established and empowered to make decisions on behalf of the
community. Or, perhaps it would be wise to recognize the committees that are
established as of now and leave that up to the next version.  I don't think
we want this Board in charge of what working groups can emerge and who can
run them.  Seems like a larger discussion for the community to be involved
in and it may be just as well to let the needs emerge.

So, I'm in favor of naming the current committees in this document and
leaving the formation of more committees to the next round of decisions. We
may then need to decide what an official committee is versus a task force
versus interest groups and whatever else we realize we need.

And, shouldn't there be a Developers committee too?

How about this...could have a "Board Advisor"  or "Board Liaison" on each
committee as a way to keep the Board and committees linked but autonomous
enough to move committee work forward without having to get official
permission from the Board?

Lori

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Corridan, Jim (ICPR)
<jcorridan at icpr.in.gov>wrote:

> Dan -
>
> Thanks for moving this forward.
>
> 1.3(a) seems to create a decentralized organization.  2.1(a) appears to
> conflict with this.  Can you provide a little more detail of your vision and
> how these two items mesh.
>
> There is no mention of standing committees as such, only recognized
> community leadership in 2.1(a).  Should there be something that explains who
> recognizes these groups and who decides who serves on them?
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:
> evergreen-governance-l-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Dan
> Scott
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 4:31 PM
> To: Evergreen Governance; Bradley M. Kuhn
> Subject: [Evergreen-governance-l] Basic rules of governance draft
>
> Hi:
>
> As promised at the last Governance Committee meeting, I've drafted a Rules
> of Governance document that attempts to reflect our current reality (we're
> bootstrapping an Oversight Board for the Evergreen software project so that
> we can join the Software Conservancy as a member in a fiscal sponsorship
> agreement) with some additional structure (Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary) and
> some minimalist rules for how the rules of governance can be amended. This
> draft also asserts that the Board is is responsible for the overall policy
> and direction of the Project, and that the Board does not generally
> implement practices, but instead relies on the recognized community
> leadership within the Project to do so. (I've adapted some of this text from
> the Fedora Project board document, as noted in the license statement at the
> bottom).
>
> My thought is that it's still too premature to try and get agreement on
> Board replacement mechanisms, election procedures, individual membership
> definitions, etc, but by providing a mechanism for amending the Rules of
> Governance we can define those in a more deliberative, reflective fashion
> while hopefully enjoying the benefits of membership in the Conservancy.
> Essentially, we should be able to start with a core set of rules on which we
> can agree, and then uses the amendment mechanism to evolve the Rules of
> Governance to encompass further aspects on which we reach agreement over
> time.
>
> I have posted the documents at
>
> http://evergreen-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=governance:structure#rules_of_governance
> and also attached the OpenDocument and PDF versions here for your
> convenience.
>
> Bradley, obviously if there is anything that is a show-stopper for the
> Conservancy in the current draft, or if you have suggestions for
> modifications or enhancements, we're all ears :)
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Evergreen-governance-l mailing list
> Evergreen-governance-l at list.georgialibraries.org
> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-governance-l
>



-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lori Bowen Ayre // Library Technology Consultant
The Galecia Group // www.galecia.com
(707) 763-6869 // Lori.Ayre at galecia.com

<Lori.Ayre at galecia.com>Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID,
filtering,
workflow optimization, and materials handling
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/evergreen-governance-l/attachments/20110302/be0ca623/attachment-0001.htm