[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Interesting proposal about approachingEvergreengovernance

[Deanna Frazee]

I disagree that a foundation is needed.  A properly incorporated users
group can serve the same purpose as the foundation, much as we did in
CODI.  CODI held the source code for the various Dynix incarnations in
escrow and handled collecting and prioritizing enhancement requests.  At
the time I was on the board, we had 5 or 6 at-large members in addition
to the standard officer positions.  Each at-large member was voted in by
the membership to fill a specific purpose such as for their expertise in
a particular module or to coordinate with the company on enhancements.  

 

Deanna Frazee

Killeen City Library System

(254) 501-8995

(254) 501-7704 (fax)

dfrazee at ci.killeen.tx.us

 

________________________________

From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
[mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of
Karen Schneider
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:35 PM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Interesting proposal about
approachingEvergreengovernance

 

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Thomas Corbett <tcorbett at cwmars.org>
wrote:

Hi Karen,

Speaking for the folks at the nearby "starting a users group" discussion
table, we'd like to see a foundation developed first and then a User
Group considered later -- if needed (depending on the role and success
of the foundation).


This is at least a good kickoff discussion. :-) Did your table have some
insights to share into the organizational structure and roles of the
foundation? (Don't forget there are still lightning talk slots tomorrow
morning..!)
 

	One question: what kind of detail are you (speaking for the
group at the table!) considering when you suggest an online spreadsheet
listing acquisition "projects?"  For selfish reasons, it would be most
helpful for us to have these projects described in as much detail as
possible, preferably listing out specific software requirements.


The level of detail wasn't spec'd out in this discussion, but it would
seem desirable to have more than less detail, accompanied by
prioritization. Just tossing this out, what if initially each Evergreen
project provided all of its "required" requirements and then a set
amount (10? 25?) of its "highly desired" requirements? 
 

	Also, without a foundation's "pool of money," independently
financed projects will trump all others (not necessarily a bad thing) no
matter what this informal group decides are the top priorities.
Nonetheless, I think such a pilot project would be worth pursuing.


Tom, that's a good point, though if such a list existed, it's possible
the money would follow. When there is collective prioritization, there
is finally something to collectively fund. It would not actually take a
foundation to be in place for projects to decide to jointly fund
development. It would be more cumbersome (and therefore prove the value
of a foundation) but unless I'm missing something it would not be
unfeasible. 


-- 
-- 
| Karen G. Schneider
| Community Librarian
| Equinox Software Inc. "The Evergreen Experts"
| Toll-free: 1.877.Open.ILS (1.877.673.6457) x712
| kgs at esilibrary.com
| Web: http://www.esilibrary.com
| Be a part of the Evergreen International Conference, May 20-22, 2009!
| http://www.lyrasis.org/evergreen 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20090522/df5469c3/attachment-0001.htm