At 05:53 PM 7/3/2015 -0700, Brendan Gallagher wrote:
Hi All -
Just a reminder - the general IRC meeting is in a few days - we (the
committee) need your comments and thoughts on the bylaws before that
meeting.
Brendan,
Firstly, thank you for all you are doing.
A couple of points re: the draft MoU at
http://kete.library.org.nz/site/documents/show/368-draft-mou-v2-for-koha-fund:
1) Given recent discussion on this list, I might suggest dropping 6.12 and
references to 'Listed Koha Support Company[ies]' in 11.2 and 11.6. (All
companies are equal, unendorsed by the community.)
2) Is it 4? or 6? representatives of the Koha Community (there seems to
be some difference between the [current version of the] Wiki page and the
draft MoU.
We're going to be voting on the bylaws at that meeting as we've
had more than a month with the bylaws.
Is a draft copy of such bylaws available? And do these correspond to 11.4
of the MoU?
Quorum [Wiki page] -- at least 50% of the membership. I agree with the
50% (even 50% + 1 if there are an even number; certainly not a minority),
but find the word membership confusing. I'm fairly sure you mean 50% of
the representatives elected by the community, but could you be more specific?
Best regards -- Paul
We are all ready to move forward
with getting money ready for the project and we've got tons of innovative
ideas for fund raising!
The American Library Association meeting was just last weekend - and there
are tons of librarians and libraries that are interested in Koha and know
of Koha. Let's keep the momentum going and show them we're a large and
active group.
Thanks,
Brendan
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Brendan Gallagher
i...@bywatersolutions.com wrote:
Done. If anyone has more please send them along.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Brendan Gallagher
i...@bywatersolutions.com wrote:
I will add in those thoughts to the doc tomorrow (I will be returning to
full time work then). If others have other suggestions let's hear them :)
Thanks Jo - hopefully you got the ball started in the right direction we
all needed.
Cheers,
Brendan
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Joann Ransom joa...@tetakere.org.nz
wrote:
I have had some thoughts:
1. Structure: I see no reason why a person should be limited to 3 years
of service. I am happy for people to offer themselves up for election as
many times as they like; the community will decide if they are still
adding
value to the committee;
2. Meetings: In addition to monthly formal meetings, my expectation is
that the committee will make heavy use of email for discussion and debate
in order to accommodate a globally disbursed committee straddling many
timezones. This includes the ability to pass motions via email PROVIDED
THAT such decisions and resolutions are recorded in the minutes of the
monthly meetings;
3. Quorum: how about at least 50% of the membership. The reason being
that 3 is only 30% of a 9 member committee. If the committee is 7
then you
require 4 for a quorum. I am loath to support a 'miniority' rules
situation.
I have not considered what might be missing so I may well come back for
second bite at this!
Cheers Jo
-Original Message-
From: Koha [mailto:koha-boun...@lists.katipo.co.nz] On Behalf Of
Brendan Gallagher
Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2015 9:33 a.m.
To: Mirko Tietgen
Cc: koha@lists.katipo.co.nz
Subject: Re: [Koha] Koha Fundraising Committee Draft Terms of Reference
Great anyone have more thoughts?
BTW nothing has been done behind the scenes... All discussions have
been posted to the mailing lists and talked about and presented at
conferences / hackfests. Nothing has or will be hidden. I just want to
make sure that we're clear on that :)
Has anyone reviewed the document at all? And there was no push to get
the bylaws voted on at the last meeting because we fell short of a long
enough review period (but since we had finished the doc we wanted to make
sure it was available for some discussion at the general meeting)... Not
to vote on.
Mirko we need more volunteers - are you willing to help here? You have
good opinions.
Thanks,
Brendan
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Mirko Tietgen
mi...@abunchofthings.net
wrote:
I don't know how to say this without stepping on anyone's toes, but I
think this discussion is taking a problematic direction. I don't think
it is good to tie the general discussion and decision on all things
fundraising to the personal situation of people that may be funded
once all is settled.
I refuse to agree I »have put somebody in a difficult situation«
because I opposed voting on things that were made public on very short
notice before meetings. I was not informed I was discussing anyone's
situation. A situation I knew nothing about.
It seems like behind the scenes it has already been agreed to
1) put money into the fund
2) pay somebody with that money
