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

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

I concur with Dan's interpretation.  Not only did he make that clear in the
rules of governance that he drafted, but I asked some questions about that
very thing on this list, and since there was no disagreement expressed with
the current draft...I assume we all completely agree!

The board has a very specific and limited role at this point. I suppose it
could change some day. But right now, it should in no way be seen as any
kind of authority over community members who find new and useful ways to
contribute.  I think everyone wants to encourage that kind of organic
growth.

DIG has been a fantastic example of what can be accomplished at the
grassroots level.  I'd love for there to be a short report from that
committee for just that reason.

Lori

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM, 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?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110316/1f068c60/attachment-0001.htm