[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Draft rules of governance for Evergreen Software Foundation - for discussion

[Dan Scott]

On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 09:22:00AM -0400, Galen Charlton wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> > [...] the contributor should always keep their
> > membership, while Magical Library would lose their membership and
> > Fantasy Library would gain a membership (unless Magical Library had
> > other contributors on their payroll, in which case they would continue
> > to keep their membership too; and if Fantasy Library already had a John
> > Doe awesome Evergreen contributor on its payroll, then it wouldn't get a
> > second library membership).
> 
> One thing to clarify here - assuming that Magical Library is running Evergreen in production, under 2.2(a)(ii) they would still qualify for membership.  In other words, an Evergreen library wouldn't lose membership just because their Super Evergreen Contributor (tm) happened to get another job.

I think I was working with the original context from Ben, which invoked
the 2.2(b) clause: "An individual library may become a Member even
though it is part of a consortium that is a Member if the library
demonstrates that it contributes to Evergreen in a significant and
sustained way, other than being a member of the consortium that is
running Evergreen"

So I had assumed that Magical Library was a member of a consortium, and
that the significant and sustained contributions to Evergreen were what
had enabled it to qualify for a membership. If so, and the loss of Jane
Smith meant that Magical Library was no longer sustaining contributions
to Evergreen, then that should mean that it would eventually no longer
qualify for membership - no?

If Magical Library is not part of a consortium, then yes, under
2.2(a)(ii) they would continue to qualify for membership simply by
continuing to run an Evergreen system in production use.