Thanks for the helpful explanation Dan. Speaking as a member of the community, I like the approach of entrusting the interim governance committee to elect a subset to represent.
Here's to moving forward! ------------------------------------------------------------- Kathy Lussier Project Coordinator Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative (508) 756-0172 (508) 755-3721 (fax) [email protected] IM: kmlussier (AOL & Yahoo) Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Dan Scott > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:28 PM > To: Evergreen Discussion Group > Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** RE: Details of > fiscal sponsorship agreement for Evergreen & Conservancy > > On 10 November 2010 12:00, Kathy Lussier <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm in favor of this plan. > > > > Just out of curiosity - who would be representing the Evergreen > > project in the Conservancy? Is it the entire governance > committee or > > specific individuals? > > Hi Kathy: > > That's something that the Conservancy works out on a > project-by-project basis. The agreement has a placeholder for this: > > [Note: This section should describe the way in which the > Project wishes to interface with > the Conservancy; including who has authority to > communicate with the > Conservancy regarding the Project and what is required in > order for > the Conservancy to act on behalf of the Project. For > example, must > all of the Developers confirm their approval of a certain > action, or > can any one of the Developers instruct the Conservancy to take a > certain action. Also, the Developer[s] may want to > identify certain > other individuals that have the power to represent the Project.] > > Aside: I believe the use of the term "Developer[s]" reflects > the most common case for the Conservancy, where a group of > developers in a given project seeks to join the Conservancy: > thus the boilerplate use of that term in the agreement. I bet > the Conservancy would be quite happy to work with a more > inclusive term for our community, where we have much broader > representation. > > To respond to your question about who would represent the > Evergreen project to the Conservancy, I personally think the > entire interim governance committee (20-ish people) would be > way too unwieldy for that role. One way of moving forward > would be for the interim governance committee to elect a > subset (1, 3, 5, 7?) to act as contacts with the Conservancy, > as directed by the community via the interim governance > committee. We're probably not talking about many actions in > the short term, as we don't really have much in the way of > funds to direct (carry-overs from previous conferences to the > next conference, domain name renewals) and I'm not aware of > any pending legal actions. (Knock on wood!) >
