[Evergreen-governance-l] Notice of Evergreen Foundation Committee Meeting; April 30, 2011 (Proposed Message to Evergreen Community)

[Karen Collier]

Dan,

I have to admit my lack of clarity was mainly because I hadn't found the time yet to read through the latest version.  Thanks for bringing me up to speed.  What you're saying sounds both clear and sensible to me.

Thanks,
Karen

----- "Dan Scott" <dan at coffeecode.net> wrote:

> Hi Karen:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:44:01PM -0400, Karen Collier wrote:
> > As an afterthought to my earlier email... 
> 
> Which, by the way, mirrored a number of my own thoughts... To answer
> one
> question, about copyright, I see no reason why members of the DIG
> would
> assign copyright to the Software Freedom Conservancy (the legal
> entity
> that the Evergreen Oversight Board plans to join), just as there's no
> reason for individual developers to assign copyright for their code
> to
> the Conservancy.
> 
> And like you, I see the monthly Community Meetings as the place for
> working groups to report on progress and identify areas where help or
> collaboration is required.
> 
> > I've lost track of whether existing volunteer groups in the
> community
> > are being officially subsumed within the new entity that Governance
> is
> > forming or if that decision is being left for later. My two cents
> is
> 
> The Rules of Governance "Authority" section states:
> 
> """
> The Board is the central administrative body of the Project. The
> Board
> is responsible for the overall policy and direction of the Project.
> The
> Board does not generally implement practices, but instead relies on
> the
> recognized community leadership within the Project – including but
> not
> limited to the Documentation Interest Group, the Communication
> Committee, and the Developer Team – to do so.
> """
> 
> Rather than a top-down governance organization, the Evergreen
> Oversight
> Board is intended to be a body of last resort for decision making.
> This
> philosophy is reinforced by the "Responsibility" section:
> 
> """
> The issues discussed by the Board generally fall into these
> categories:
> 
>   (a) Issues escalated from a committee or other subgroup in the
> Project
> that has reached an impasse but requires a decision by informed
> consensus;
> 
>   (b) Issues that do not fall into the purview of any of the
> established
> committees or other subgroups, but requires a decision by informed
> consensus;
> 
>   (c) Issues of strategic, as opposed to tactical, importance for the
> Project that require leadership and vision from above the team or
> subproject
> level to achieve; or,
> 
>   (d) Sensitive legal or personnel issues which require research and
> discussion to protect the interests of the Project.
> """
> 
> As you can hopefully see (where I'm hoping that I've written those
> two
> sections relatively clearly - but might have failed), the goal is for
> the community to continue to function as a "do-ocracy" where
> interested
> people can contribute to the Evergreen project in areas about which
> they
> are passionate without having to ask for permission from the Board.
> The
> Board's primary concern should be managing assets (including funds
> and
> the usage of the Evergreen trademark, logo, domains, etc) if/when
> those
> are contributed to the Conservancy, earmarked for the Evergreen
> project.
> 
> > that it would make sense for Governance to figure out what "rules"
> go
> > along with being a committee within the Governance organization and
> > then offer that option to existing community groups like DIG. The
> > memberships of those groups could then vote on whether to become a
> > committee or stay independent. I'm not suggesting that DIG or other
> > existing groups wouldn't want to be part of this Governance
> movement,
> > only that offering the choice could help with getting buy-in from
> > current participants. Thoughts? 
> 
> Given the current Rules of Governance document, I don't think there is
> a
> meaningful distinction between being a committee or staying
> independent.
> The Conservancy will see the Evergreen Oversight Board as the
> official
> representation of the Evergreen project for purposes of taking
> direction
> on the management of its assets, so if/when an effort requires
> funding
> (examples might include future conferences, or for buying a new
> domain
> name), then the Board needs to direct the Conservancy to cut a cheque
> accordingly. But with the possible exception of centralizing project
> asset management, the goal I had when I wrote this draft of the Rules
> of
> Governance was to avoid the disruption of those decentralized
> results-oriented practices that had proven successful within the
> Evergreen project so far - and the DIG is one of the examples of
> successful efforts.
> 
> Does that make sense?

-- 
Karen Collier
Public Services Librarian
Kent County Public Library
408 High Street
Chestertown, MD 21620
410-778-3636 ext. 2113
www.kentcountylibrary.org