[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** RE: Draft rules of governance for Evergreen Software Foundation - for discussion

[Kathy Lussier]

Hi all,

What a great discussion on the draft rules! I have a question about Section
3.3. 

Part (d) states:

For the purpose of broad representation on the Oversight Board, it is
preferred that each of the following is represented on the board:   

(i) academic library
(ii) public library
(iii) independent library that is not part of a consortium
(iv) library that is a member of an Evergreen consortium
(v) library located outside of the United States
(vi) state library
(vii) vendor (entity or organization that provides Evergreen related
services for a fee)


Although "library that is a member of an Evergreen consortium" is included
on the list, I notice that an Evergreen consortium is not on the list. As
Galen mentioned in a previous e-mail, there are many consortia where members
expect the central agency to represent them, and this would be the case for
the consortia participating in our project. Looking further down the list, I
see "(vi) state library" which I expect would have similar interests to
consortia that are running Evergreen. Could (vi) be expanded to include
consortia? Or was (iv) intended to cover either a library or a
representative from the central agency?

Thanks to those on the governance group for putting the work into creating
this document!

Kathy Lussier

-------------------------------------------------------------
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: Saturday, October 09, 2010 10:09 AM
> To: atz at esilibrary.com
> Cc: Evergreen Discussion Group
> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Draft rules of governance for 
> Evergreen Software Foundation - for discussion
> 
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 02:15:39PM -0400, Joe Atzberger wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Dan Scott 
> <dan at coffeecode.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:46:57PM -0400, Joe Atzberger wrote:
> > > > > I believe that we need to encourage more participation in and 
> > > > > contribution to the Evergreen community, and that the 
> currently 
> > > > > drafted membership rules are one small way to encourage that.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see what relation your Koha example has to 
> the proposed 
> > > > > membership rules, unless you think that the person would have 
> > > > > said to themselves "I'm just a user and not a member, 
> therefore 
> > > > > I'm not going
> > > to
> > > > > contribute"...  which seems unlikely to me.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, that wouldn't make sense.  The question at hand regards
> > > characterizing
> > > > "non-contributing" users (NCUs).  Will there be a lot 
> them?  Will 
> > > > they
> > > bog
> > > > us down?  Firstly, we're talking about a subset of 
> "non-contributing"
> > > users:
> > > > the ones who will actually exercise the membership I 
> would extend 
> > > > to them and use their vote.  Secondly, if you are 
> active enough to 
> > > > be voting, I consider it quite likely you will become 
> involved in 
> > > > other aspects of the project, whether that is sending code, 
> > > > building test systems, testing features, training 
> users, hosting 
> > > > the conference, editing documentation, wrangling bugs, 
> translating 
> > > > strings, helping new users with installs or whatever.  
> The Koha community illustrates this pretty well.
> > >
> > > > But basically, I see responsible membership in the 
> Foundation as a 
> > > > form
> > > of
> > > > participation in the community itself, not as a payoff for some 
> > > > other activity.  Membership in the community should 
> only require 
> > > > that you have
> > > a
> > > > legitimate interest in EG.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're comparing an attempt to set up the rules of 
> engagement for a 
> > > legal entity that handles financial and legal matters 
> (the Evergreen 
> > > Software Foundation) to an informal community (the Koha 
> community).
> > >
> > 
> > Yes, notably one that has recently dealt with some of the 
> exact same 
> > problems that this Foundation expects to deal with (or 
> circumvent).  
> > And to do that, they also had to determine membership 
> eligibility and 
> > recognize votes.
> 
> I think that either you're misunderstanding me, or I'm 
> misunderstanding you. Perhaps it's the ambiguous use of the 
> term "member". When you say "Membership in the community 
> should only require that you have a legitimate interest in 
> EG", I agree: membership in the Evergreen community is wide 
> open. That won't change with the creation of the Evergreen 
> Software Foundation. But yes, "Foundation members" would be a 
> subset of "community members" in the draft rules of governance.
> 
> The Evergreen Software Foundation would be a new legal entity 
> with the specific role of holding some assets, specifically 
> the Evergreen logo, trademark, copyright (for at least one 
> organization that wants to assign their copyright to the 
> Foundation), domain name(s), and financial assets (donations, 
> revenues from conferences, sponsorships are some possible avenues).
> 
> These assets need to be managed (and potentially enforced, in 
> the case of logo / trademark / copyright) by trusted 
> community members. In many non-profit organizations, all 
> power is held by the governing board
> - the traditional structure of a dozen or so people who can 
> commit time and energy on behalf of the community to act in 
> their best interests.
> 
> The draft rules of governance for the Foundation distributes 
> more power to Foundation members, but the definition of 
> membership tries to ensure that that responsibility remains 
> in the hands of trusted community members.  Ergo the (as was 
> pointed out in a previous email) requirements for Foundation 
> members to show sustained, significant contributions and to 
> be approved by the Nomination and Membership Development Committee.
> As I previously pointed out, this is not a new model: it is 
> used by the Ubuntu and Sugar Labs projects.
> 
> > > Users who stake their enterprise on the utility and 
> longevity of our 
> > > project
> > 
> > > are not, in my opinion, so much disposable solvent.  They are in 
> > > many ways
> > 
> > I don't see where, in the draft rules of governance or in 
> any previous 
> > emails in this thread, users were ever characterized in anything 
> > remotely close to this fashion.
> > 
> > The phrase was "the meaning of membership becomes watered 
> down", water 
> > being the solvent.  Not that they were useless to EG 
> overall, but that 
> > they were undesirable as Foundation membership.
> 
> Hmm. When you said "in my opinion" you implied that it was my 
> opinion that users were "so much disposable solvent". While 
> that was a skilled use of a rhetorical tactic that might cast 
> me in a negative light, I don't think that helps advance a 
> serious discussion about rules of governance.
> 
> I would never characterize water as something disposable; 
> it's a precious resource.
> 
> I would also not say that "Users who stake their enterprise 
> on the utility and longevity of our project" ... are 
> "undesirable as Foundation membership". I would say that, 
> just as we do not allow anyone interested in Evergreen to 
> commit to the core repository (even new hires at Equinox do 
> not automatically get commit access), but rather require 
> developers to demonstrate sustained, significant 
> contributions and an understanding of the code base before 
> being invited to become a committer, I believe that there 
> should be some demonstrated level of dedication to and 
> understanding of the Evergreen community before a community 
> member is invited to become a Foundation member.
> 
> > So these users, who may or may not be running EG themselves 
> in house 
> > or accessing it via consortium or cloud service, operating with or 
> > without the assistance of 3rd party vendors, they have 
> their enterprise staked on it.
> 
> If that's the case, then they should be contributing to this 
> project that they have staked their enterprise on, shouldn't 
> they? I've tried, several times, to point out that there are 
> many possible ways to contribute; participating on a 
> committee is a contribution. Contributing to a discussion 
> about the draft rules of governance is a contribution.
> 
> On that note, if these users of Evergreen who have staked 
> their enterprise on Evergreen really are concerned about not 
> being able to be Foundation members based on the current 
> definition of membership, shouldn't they themselves be 
> raising that concern?
> 
> >  They have a bona fide interest in the Foundation, but do 
> they have a role?
> >  Please correct me if I misstate it: your position seems to 
> be "some 
> > do, some don't", depending on the level of in-house-ness or other 
> > qualitative measure of community contribution.  I'd prefer 
> not to have 
> > a remainder of folks with critical stake and no role.
> 
> I have a bona fide interest in many, many organizations that 
> directly affect my life. And yet, if I don't participate in 
> some way, I don't expect to be trusted with the power to make 
> significant changes to those organizations. For example, I 
> have significant interest in the public school that my child 
> attends - but I don't expect to show up at a board meeting 
> and be given a role as a voting member of the board just 
> because I reproduced five years ago and now my child goes to 
> a school in that district.
> 
> I _do_ expect my voice to be heard by trustees, and my 
> concerns to be taken seriously by those on the board - and 
> if, over time, I participate in board meetings and organize 
> fund drives and whatnot, I would have a solid base on which 
> to make a case for becoming a trustee and having a vote.
> 
> > Also, not speaking for ESI, but personally, if I was a vendor with 
> > many institutional players of various sizes utilizing my hosted 
> > solutions who were otherwise not represented, I would not 
> want to be 
> > stuck having to synthesize their conflicting viewpoints for the 
> > purpose of representing them to the Foundation with *my* vote.
> 
> Again, those "institutional players" are not prohibited from 
> contributing to policy discussions, participating on 
> committees, etc, and thereby making significant, sustained 
> contributions to Evergreen that would qualify them for 
> Foundation membership. So if they actually care, they don't 
> have to rely on their vendor or consortium to represent their 
> view - they can participate directly.
> 
> To start with, rather than you representing their theoretical 
> concerns, they should be representing their own actual 
> concerns in this thread, shouldn't they?
> 
> > Anyway, I think I've had my say on it.  I appreciate that 
> people are 
> > taking it seriously at the outset.
> 
> At this point, I think I understand more about what you don't 
> like about the proposed rules of governance than what you 
> like, or what you would prefer to see.
> 
> Could you post a draft of an alternative governance structure 
> that would formalize your vision of how this legal entity 
> would make decisions about managing the various legal and 
> financial assets on the Evergreen community's behalf? 
>