[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Interesting proposal about approachingEvergreengovernance

[Deanna Frazee]

While I agree that the environment is different from dealing with a
proprietary vendor, it still seems to me that adding a foundation into
the mix is just adding an unnecessary layer.  Is there any reason that a
user group cannot be set up so that it directs development?

Deanna Frazee
Killeen City Library System
(254) 501-8995
(254) 501-7704 (fax)
dfrazee at ci.killeen.tx.us
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
[mailto:open-ils-
> general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Jason
Stephenson
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 9:37 AM
> To: Evergreen Discussion Group
> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Interesting proposal about
> approachingEvergreengovernance
> 
> Quoting Deanna  Frazee <dfrazee at ci.killeen.tx.us>:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> A users' group works well when there is a proprietary vendor.
> However,in an open source project, with whom would this users' group
> coordinate? You would end up needing an Evergreen Foundation anyway to
> direct development and to coordinate with the users' group.
> 
> I am, of course, assuming a traditional users' group along the lines
> of CODI (of which my employer is still a member) where the users
> prioritize development goals and request feature enhancements. That
> kind of arrangement doesn't work in open source unless there is
> already some foundation setup with whom the users' group can
coordinate.
> 
> However, if that users' group is composed of the people contributing
> to the project with code, time, money, and other resources, then it
> might work, but after a while it would likely need some corporate
> structure in the form of a foundation.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>