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

[Joe Atzberger]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Lori Bowen Ayre <lori.ayre at galecia.com>wrote:

> I think we didn't nail this down because we don't feel nailed down about
> it!
>
> The question is: should a library be able to be a voting member (one vote)
> if the extent of their contribution to the community is simply to use the
> Evergreen system being run by their consortium.
>

My sense is, yes.  They have a legitimate stake in the project.  And it
won't be as if most institutions that are concerned enough to exercise their
vote will stay otherwise uninvolved with the project.  The Koha community
has several prominent examples of people who started as "just users" and end
up as regular contributors.

Also it is important to note that the Foundation really will *not* govern
development, in terms of technical choices or overall direction.  So the
potential for it to turn into a User Group Wishlist/Gripefest should be
limited.  It should be allowed to focus on long term issues.  That makes the
question of a User Group is somewhat separate, I think.  Unless there are
some resources pooled for it, I don't see any reason to formalize
UserGroupness now, and at least until after the Foundation is established.

--joe

Here's a thought...do we need a non-voting organizational membership
> category which keeps you in the loop and included in the community without
> having a right to actually vote until such time as you show that you are
> indeed contributing in some way?  We've articulated many of the ways such a
> contribution can be made, and there are probably others that people will
> lobby to be included.  And the Membership Development Committee is
> responsible for recognizing those contributions and ensuring that people who
> are contributing do get a vote.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Galen Charlton <gmc at esilibrary.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> To quote 2.2(a)(ii), the contributing-qua-running-Evergreen clause is:
>>
>> "running an Evergreen system that is in production use, including those
>> libraries whose Evergreen catalog is hosted by another party or is part of a
>> consortium;"
>>
>> One of the intentions of the wording was to not preclude membership just
>> because a library happens to have a third party host their installation, and
>> the same consideration arguably applies to some consortia.  Consequently, I
>> think there's some tension between 2.2(a)(ii) and 2.2(b) that should be
>> resolved.  While some consortia are organized such that the member libraries
>> would expect the central agency to represent them in organizations like the
>> Evergreen foundation, not all consortia are like this.  For example, I know
>> of at least one Evergreen group that is much more like a set of independent
>> libraries who are sharing a database but who are not otherwise tightly
>> integrated.
>>
>> My personal preference is to not close the door to consortium members who
>> do desire membership in the foundation while not putting the foundation in a
>> position where it has to care about the particular governance structure of
>> one consortium or another.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Galen
>> --
>> Galen Charlton
>> VP, Data Services
>> Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
>> email:  gmc at esilibrary.com
>> direct: +1 352-215-7548
>> skype:  gmcharlt
>> web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20101007/9ca93ca9/attachment.htm