[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** RE: Details of fiscal sponsorship agreement for Evergreen & Conservancy

[Kathy Lussier]

Thanks for the helpful explanation Dan. Speaking as a member of the
community, I like the approach of entrusting the interim governance
committee to elect a subset to represent. 

Here's to moving forward!



-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 756-0172
(508) 755-3721 (fax)
klussier at masslnc.org
IM: kmlussier (AOL & Yahoo)
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
 
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org 
> [mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] 
> On Behalf Of Dan Scott
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:28 PM
> To: Evergreen Discussion Group
> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** RE: Details of 
> fiscal sponsorship agreement for Evergreen & Conservancy
> 
> On 10 November 2010 12:00, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org> wrote:
> > I'm in favor of this plan.
> >
> > Just out of curiosity - who would be representing the Evergreen 
> > project in the Conservancy? Is it the entire governance 
> committee or 
> > specific individuals?
> 
> Hi Kathy:
> 
> That's something that the Conservancy works out on a 
> project-by-project basis.  The agreement has a placeholder for this:
> 
> [Note: This section should describe the way in which the 
> Project wishes to interface with
>     the Conservancy; including who has authority to 
> communicate with the
>     Conservancy regarding the Project and what is required in 
> order for
>     the Conservancy to act on behalf of the Project.  For 
> example, must
>     all of the Developers confirm their approval of a certain 
> action, or
>     can any one of the Developers instruct the Conservancy to take a
>     certain action.  Also, the Developer[s] may want to 
> identify certain
>     other individuals that have the power to represent the Project.]
> 
> Aside: I believe the use of the term "Developer[s]" reflects 
> the most common case for the Conservancy, where a group of 
> developers in a given project seeks to join the Conservancy: 
> thus the boilerplate use of that term in the agreement. I bet 
> the Conservancy would be quite happy to work with a more 
> inclusive term for our community, where we have much broader 
> representation.
> 
> To respond to your question about who would represent the 
> Evergreen project to the Conservancy, I personally think the 
> entire interim governance committee (20-ish people) would be 
> way too unwieldy for that role. One way of moving forward 
> would be for the interim governance committee to elect a 
> subset (1, 3, 5, 7?) to act as contacts with the Conservancy, 
> as directed by the community via the interim governance 
> committee. We're probably not talking about many actions in 
> the short term, as we don't really have much in the way of 
> funds to direct (carry-overs from previous conferences to the 
> next conference, domain name renewals) and I'm not aware of 
> any pending legal actions. (Knock on wood!)
>