I know it's too late since this meeting was held already, but I'm with Brooke & MJ on this - seems like things are being run a bit too much like a proprietary users group - which is what we all know and are comfortable with - but which is not how an open source project works. Also - the name should be KUG (Koha Users Group) if it's going to just be a users group and not include developers - which is also silly because many developers are actually users as well ... sorry - I'm going around in circles because that's kind of how I feel when reading through all of this. I hope to see that some clarity came out of the meeting. Nicole On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 8:19 AM, M. Brooke Helman <abesottedphoenix@yahoo.com> wrote:
Salvete!
Standard, voting membership:(sorry these may not line up right via the email.)
Number of Biblios Annual cost Votes 1 - 49,999 $5 1 50,000 - 99,999 $10 2 100,000-149,999 $15 3 150,000-199,999 $20 4 200,000-249,999 $25 5 250,000-299,999 $30 6 300,000-349,999 $35 7 350,000-399,999 $40 8 400,000-449,999 $45 9 450,000-499,999 $50 10 500,000 - 549,999 $55 11 550,000 - 599,999 $60 12 600,000 - 649,999 $65 13 650,000 - 699,999 $70 14 700,000 - 749,999 $75 15 750,000 - 799,999 $80 16 800,000 - 849,999 $85 17 850,000 - 899,999 $90 18 900,000- $100 19
Is a plutocracy based on Library size really the way to go on an Open Source project? While it's nice to implement a sliding cost scale so that small Libraries can afford a membership (which should probably be free with a suggested donation for all Libraries) I can't see a rationale behind a Library 18 times as large as the smallest bracket getting 19 votes for a payment that is 20 times more costly. About 3/4s of the US Libraries are small rural Libraries, and again about 3/4s of those have collections of about 10,000, depending on where you get your statistics.
Cheers, Brooke
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha