[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Details of fiscal sponsorship agreement for Evergreen & Conservancy

[Sharp, Chris]

Couple of things about the Evergreen-Governance-L archive... we've noticed that some of the messages have been corrupted somehow... I'll look into the extent and hopefully why this might be happening.  Also, as Ben Shum pointed out to me, the file attachments are removed for the archive and there is not a way (currently) we can turn on file attachment archiving without affecting all other GPLS lists and we don't want other lists to be affected.  While we continue to use the governance list, we will probably want to seek a "web-permanent" way to link to our documents.

Chris Sharp
PINES Program Manager
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Suite 150
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
(404) 235-7147
csharp at georgialibraries.org
http://pines.georgialibraries.org/

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Scott" <dan at coffeecode.net>
> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <open-ils-general at list.georgialibraries.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:30:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Details of fiscal sponsorship agreement for Evergreen & Conservancy
> On 21 October 2010 17:33, Sharp, Chris <csharp at georgialibraries.org>
> wrote:
> >> There has been some recent discussion about those rules of
> >> governance on the Evergreen-Governance mailing list; I'm hoping
> >> that
> >> that discussion will be brought back over to the Evergreen-General
> >> mailing list soon, as both of these matters are of great
> >> significance
> >> to the future of the Evergreen community.
> >
> > I have set the archives of the Evergreen-Governance-L mailing list
> > to be publicly accessible here:
> >
> > http://list.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/evergreen-governance-l/
> 
> Awesome! Thanks Chris! I've updated
> http://evergreen-ils.org/listserv.php to point to the archives of this
> mailing list.
> 
> > To be clear, (and I'm saying this to the community as a whole, not
> > necessarily to you, Dan) the goal has never been to be a "closed" or
> > "exclusive" group, but to keep communication at a manageable level.
> > I realize that the effect has been that it seems opaque - just know
> > that our goals have been around fair representation of all
> > stakeholders while keeping the group at a manageable size.
> 
> Right, I think that the "manageable size" problem gets introduced when
> we use conference calls to communicate rather than mailing lists.
> Conference calls don't scale! And we didn't exactly get a deluge of
> responses to the first draft of the rules of governance, so hopefully
> we'll be able to migrate the bulk of the discussion over here.
> 
> Thanks again,
> Dan