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

[Amy Terlaga]

Kathy has a point and I'm sorry I missed the distinction caught up in the
wording of 

(iv) library that is a member of an Evergreen consortium

 

If you look at the make-up of the interim Evergreen Board, you will see that
most of us fit into the category that ISN'T defined below.  PINES,
Bibliomation, Evergreen Indiana, SITKA, others .. The members on the Board
are staff members of the consortium, NOT library staff members of an
Evergreen consortium.

 

And no, I don't think that we should stick consortia in with the vendors.
We're a different animal.  

 

Amy

 

 

Message: 1

Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:36:11 -0400

From: "Kathy Lussier" <klussier at masslnc.org>

Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** RE: Draft rules of governance

      for   Evergreen Software Foundation - for discussion

To: "'Evergreen Discussion Group'"

      <open-ils-general at list.georgialibraries.org>

Message-ID: <8BF69E150576477CBBCAD969DC1A4F8E at CWCENTRAL.internal>

Content-Type: text/plain;     charset="us-ascii"

 

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

 

 

=======================

Amy Terlaga

Assistant Director, User Services

Bibliomation

32 Crest Road

Middlebury, CT  06762

(203)577-4070 x101

http://www.biblio.org

----

Bibliomation's Open Source blog:

http://biblio-os.blogspot.com/

 

Join us on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=171935276419

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20101012/544cc4f4/attachment.htm