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

[Ben Shum]

  Hmm, it is interesting that this list from Section 3.3 seems mostly 
aimed at making sure that library institutions (6 out of 7 listed) are 
represented as broadly as possible on the board.  Which makes sense to 
me given that this is software meant for libraries.

I'm curious though, we defined six different types of Foundation Member 
in Section 2.1, but we only list two types (library and vendor, i.e. 
Business) as part of this preferred list of representation on the 
Oversight Board.  Perhaps adjusting the language to allow for other 
types of Foundation Members, such as Consortium, might make this part 
less awkward.

I would suggest we can either modify part (d) so that it reflects this 
is a broad representation of the different types of libraries to be 
represented on the board (and thereafter drop vendor from the list and 
redefine its need elsewhere).  Or we can expand the list to include 
other groups as necessary?

-- Ben Shum

On 10/12/2010 10:36 AM, Kathy Lussier wrote:
> 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