>
> > > The question is: should a library be able to be a voting member (one
> vote)
> > > if the extent of their contribution to the community is simply to use
> the
> > > Evergreen system being run by their consortium.
> >
> > My sense is, yes. They have a legitimate stake in the project. And i
Dan Said:
"Right, there are no barriers to participating in the community. You
don't have to be a member of the Foundation to monitor the mailing lists
/ read blogs and newsletters / watch the commit log, or to start
contributing to the community. That openness to participation won't
change if/whe
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 02:17:47PM -0400, Joe Atzberger wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Lori Bowen Ayre wrote:
>
> > I think we didn't nail this down because we don't feel nailed down about
> > it!
> >
> > The question is: should a library be able to be a voting member (one vote)
> > if t
Thanks Dan and Galen for the lively answers to my question!
Hmm, based on the clarifications, I'm reading that it is possible for
someone to hold their own individual membership, but also be the
representative of their library institution's membership at the same
time. Is that correct?
As for L
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Lori Bowen Ayre wrote:
> I think we didn't nail this down because we don't feel nailed down about
> it!
>
> The question is: should a library be able to be a voting member (one vote)
> if the extent of their contribution to the community is simply to use the
> Everg
Thanks Dan!
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
> In the list of Initial Board Members in Addendum A, James Fournie's name
> has an extra "r" attached to it. I will edit the wiki document to
> correct the spelling, accordingly.
>
I think we didn't nail this down because we don't feel nailed down about it!
The question is: should a library be able to be a voting member (one vote)
if the extent of their contribution to the community is simply to use the
Evergreen system being run by their consortium.
Here's a thought...do w
Hi,
On Oct 7, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
> If Magical Library is not part of a consortium, then yes, under
> 2.2(a)(ii) they would continue to qualify for membership simply by
> continuing to run an Evergreen system in production use.
To quote 2.2(a)(ii), the contributing-qua-running-Ever
In the list of Initial Board Members in Addendum A, James Fournie's name
has an extra "r" attached to it. I will edit the wiki document to
correct the spelling, accordingly.
I wanted to note two errors found while proof-reading the draft rules of
governance:
* ARTICLE II. MEMEBERSHIP <-- typo, should be MEMBERSHIP
* 1.2.(b) has two subsections (ii)
I am going to use the power of the wiki to make those changes now - that
is a format where we have version control o
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 09:22:00AM -0400, Galen Charlton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> > [...] the contributor should always keep their
> > membership, while Magical Library would lose their membership and
> > Fantasy Library would gain a membership (unless Magica
Hi,
On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> [...] the contributor should always keep their
> membership, while Magical Library would lose their membership and
> Fantasy Library would gain a membership (unless Magical Library had
> other contributors on their payroll, in which case they woul
12 matches
Mail list logo
