: "Chris Sharp"
To: "Evergreen Discussion Group"
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:49:50 PM
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Draft rules of governance for Evergreen
Software Foundation - for discussion
Amy,
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll repeat here for the Gen
http://pines.georgialibraries.org/
From: "Amy Terlaga"
To: open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:28:00 PM
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Draft rules of governance for Evergreen
Software Foundation - for discussion
Kathy has a point
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
Kathy has a point and I'm sorry I missed the distinction caught up in the
wording of
(iv) library that is a member of an Evergreen consortium
If you look at the make-up of the interim Evergreen Board, you will see that
most of us fit into the category that ISN'T defined below. PINES,
Bibliom
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 02:15:39PM -0400, Joe Atzberger wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:46:57PM -0400, Joe Atzberger wrote:
> > > > I believe that we need to encourage more participation in and
> > > > contribution to the Evergreen commu
Joe,
I think what we're trying to do is move away from the model in which the
vendor is put in a position of having all the say. So when you say...
Also, not speaking for ESI, but personally, if I was a vendor with many
institutional players of various sizes utilizing my hosted solutions who
wer
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:46:57PM -0400, Joe Atzberger wrote:
> > > I believe that we need to encourage more participation in and
> > > contribution to the Evergreen community, and that the currently drafted
> > > membership rules are one small
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:46:57PM -0400, Joe Atzberger wrote:
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
>
> > > 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
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
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
Hi Ben:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 05:41:53PM -0400, Ben Shum wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Under Section 2.2 (Eligibility),
>
> Part (b) states: "An individual library may become a Member even though
> it is part of a consortium that is a Member if the library demonstrates
> that it contributes to Evergre
After a great deal of effort through the summer, the Governance
Committee that was struck at the 2010 Evergreen Conference is pleased to
provide for your review and feedback the proposed rules of governance for
the Evergreen Software Foundation. These rules can be found at the top
of the "governanc
19 matches
Mail list logo
