Re: [Koha] First things first for a Koha foundation
Kia ora, I have to say that I support Thomas's points here. The community appears to have lost control of the trademark, the domain and website. The only thing that it retains some control over is the software. In order to regroup and map out a path from here, I think the establishment of some kind of entity is paramount. If this is going to take some time (which is likely), I too suggest we consider using the HLT in the interim. The fork has occurred, and LL has the trademark and the domain. One unpleasant possibility is a rebirth for Koha. If LL owns the domain, they effectively own the trademark. One way around this could be a new foundation, new name and website. Thoughts? Mark
I think it's the only real solution to our problems. A transition like this won't be fun, but will be a huge benefit to everyone involved. Kyle http://www.kylehall.info Information Technology Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org ) 2009/10/11 Mark Osborne <mosborne@ashs.school.nz>:
Kia ora, I have to say that I support Thomas's points here. The community appears to have lost control of the trademark, the domain and website. The only thing that it retains some control over is the software. In order to regroup and map out a path from here, I think the establishment of some kind of entity is paramount. If this is going to take some time (which is likely), I too suggest we consider using the HLT in the interim. The fork has occurred, and LL has the trademark and the domain. One unpleasant possibility is a rebirth for Koha. If LL owns the domain, they effectively own the trademark. One way around this could be a new foundation, new name and website. Thoughts?
Mark
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
I have been out of town, but I will get the final survey up early next week and we will see where the community stands and make a final decision and move forward with the plan to have a foundation behind Koha. That said - I am with the others here who have said we should go with HLT because they are the most obvious in my eyes, have a vested interest in Koha, are library-related, and will cause no trouble when we (the community) are ready to go out and found on our own. Nicole On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Kyle Hall <kyle.m.hall@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it's the only real solution to our problems. A transition like this won't be fun, but will be a huge benefit to everyone involved.
Kyle
http://www.kylehall.info Information Technology Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )
2009/10/11 Mark Osborne <mosborne@ashs.school.nz>:
Kia ora, I have to say that I support Thomas's points here. The community appears to have lost control of the trademark, the domain and website. The only thing that it retains some control over is the software. In order to regroup and map out a path from here, I think the establishment of some kind of entity is paramount. If this is going to take some time (which is likely), I too suggest we consider using the HLT in the interim. The fork has occurred, and LL has the trademark and the domain. One unpleasant possibility is a rebirth for Koha. If LL owns the domain, they effectively own the trademark. One way around this could be a new foundation, new name and website. Thoughts?
Mark
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Nicole, Please be certain to submit your draft of the final survey to the koha mailing list with ample time for public comment, correction, and amendment before it would go live. All Koha community ballots should be a matter of public discussion. I raised the issue in more detail with reasons in an earlier message in this thread which you may not have yet had the opportunity to read while busy at the conference which you have been attending. See http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2009-October/020612.html . Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783 On Sun, October 11, 2009 13:58, Nicole Engard wrote:
I have been out of town, but I will get the final survey up early next week and we will see where the community stands and make a final decision and move forward with the plan to have a foundation behind Koha.
[...]
Thomas, This request - while I understand where it's coming from - is a bit unreasonable. If I were to submit the poll for review by everyone then we'd never get the official poll up and answered and move forward. That said, I am not working on the poll alone, there are several people helping me make all of the changes that were requested before. Thanks Nicole On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
Nicole,
Please be certain to submit your draft of the final survey to the koha mailing list with ample time for public comment, correction, and amendment before it would go live. All Koha community ballots should be a matter of public discussion.
I raised the issue in more detail with reasons in an earlier message in this thread which you may not have yet had the opportunity to read while busy at the conference which you have been attending. See http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2009-October/020612.html .
Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
On Sun, October 11, 2009 13:58, Nicole Engard wrote:
I have been out of town, but I will get the final survey up early next week and we will see where the community stands and make a final decision and move forward with the plan to have a foundation behind Koha.
[...]
Nicole, I certainly sense the urgency in the Koha community to move forward, however, we should not make the same mistake which brings us to this urgency in the first place. A party acting with too little consultation has left us with the problem which we are now facing. We cannot solve that problem by replacing one unilateral process with another. Ultimately, much activity of the Koha community needs to be delegated to representatives through a democratic process so that not every decision is taken by the entire electorate. Some basic questions will always need a vote of the entire electorate. If the design of previous ballots had not been so confused even given the difficulty of designing questions so that they are both well understood and neutral, then I might have less concern. However, we have adopted no formal process for good ballot design which might constrain mistakes such as the ones which we have had and almost had on recent ballots. Designing ballots well can be tricky and the only criticism I make of those who have designed recent ballots is not consulting widely enough about their design. The questions at issue in the foundation forming poll are not especially contentious but the process is of vital importance. 1. FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF BALLOT DESIGN. Ballot design is so vital to any democratic process that it should not start with a small committee with no popular mandate for the task. How ballot questions are put naturally effects the outcome of any poll. Failing to make the ballot design process democratic at the beginning undermines the legitimacy and support being sought through an otherwise democratic election process. Leaving ballot design to a small committee alone, especially when the whole electorate has not had an opportunity to choose the ballot design committee or representatives understood to be charged with forming a ballot design committee is a great mistake. If the whole electorate chooses a ballot design committee or representatives who's positions are understood to include appointing a ballot design committee, then the process could be demonstrably to be democratic. However, this has not happened. 2. DEMOCRACY AND EFFICIENCY. Open democratic consideration of questions is not intended to be a maximally efficient process. Open democratic consideration of questions is intended to be a fair process which consults those affected by questions at issue. There is something less efficient than democracy. A poll in which one is uncertain of the meaning of the results because we are uncertain whether the questions were well understood is less efficient than a democratic process where the questions have at least been reasonably considered in advance by those who are being asked to answer them in a ballot. Racing ahead with a closed ballot drafting process will be liable to retard progress afterwards, not advance it. 3. BALLOT CONSULTATION PROCESS. You make the presumption that having general comment on the drafting of the ballot would be an unreasonable and interminable process. Yet you have not asked how one might propose to conduct such a process. Start a thread on final ballot drafting in the Koha list with some main subject tag that may branch with variant subtopics. Post the first draft which your committee proposes and then give people a definite time limit in which to comment. Seven days may be a good time limit for the comment period and I would not suggest that the design issues are so problematic that any more than fourteen days should be set as the time limit. Try to post any revised drafts from the ballot design committee in the middle of the time period. The ballot committee members should certainly comment themselves. [I have several suggestions for the ballot upon which I am working.] After the comment time period has expired, then have the ballot committee produce a final version on which we will all vote. Even if the comments do not produce any changes in the final ballot produced by the ballot committee, it will have given the electorate a genuine opportunity to participate in how the poll is conducted. There is nothing so vitally threatening to the Koha community that it will cease to exist if we take a week of additional time to have open participation in drafting a ballot on which everyone is being asked to vote. There will necessarily be many ad hoc legacy processes which will persist until we have the time to consider and introduce more formal structures in those areas where more formal structures are actually needed. We should not start by undermining the popular voice in how a popular vote is conducted. 4. COROLLARY VOTING ISSUES. In addition to ballot design, there are other issues about how what procedure is used when there is no absolute majority on a question which can have only one choice. We should no what will be done before the vote has taken place and not be choosing a method afterwords when the question arises. The aim should be to maximise voter preferences and not eliminate preferences and choice with oversimplification. Ranked ballots allow sophisticated voting preference analysis to determine outcomes with a simple ballot but people need to understand the process. See "Preferential voting", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting ; and other related articles such as "Condorcet method", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method , and "Schulze method" , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method in Wikipedia. Several software projects use the Schulze method and variations on it. 4. ACTUAL EFFECT. I will explain in another thread thread that a Koha foundation cannot govern the development process in free software project because it would not be free software in such a case. However, popular vote should be able to decide key questions in areas in which people give it the resources, such as trademarks, internet domain names, and whatever else people contribute over which a Koha foundation could exercise control and use to the benefit of everyone. Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783 On Sun, October 11, 2009 22:10, Nicole Engard wrote:
Thomas,
This request - while I understand where it's coming from - is a bit unreasonable. If I were to submit the poll for review by everyone then we'd never get the official poll up and answered and move forward. That said, I am not working on the poll alone, there are several people helping me make all of the changes that were requested before.
Thanks Nicole
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
Nicole,
Please be certain to submit your draft of the final survey to the koha mailing list with ample time for public comment, correction, and amendment before it would go live. All Koha community ballots should be a matter of public discussion.
I raised the issue in more detail with reasons in an earlier message in this thread which you may not have yet had the opportunity to read while busy at the conference which you have been attending. See http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2009-October/020612.html .
Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
On Sun, October 11, 2009 13:58, Nicole Engard wrote:
I have been out of town, but I will get the final survey up early next week and we will see where the community stands and make a final decision and move forward with the plan to have a foundation behind Koha.
[...]
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
Nicole,
I certainly sense the urgency in the Koha community to move forward, however, we should not make the same mistake which brings us to this urgency in the first place. A party acting with too little consultation has left us with the problem which we are now facing. We cannot solve that problem by replacing one unilateral process with another.
It is my understanding that this has been in discussion for years - and is only be rushed now because everyone it tired of discussing it to death and want to make a decision.
Ultimately, much activity of the Koha community needs to be delegated to representatives through a democratic process so that not every decision is taken by the entire electorate. Some basic questions will always need a vote of the entire electorate.
If the design of previous ballots had not been so confused even given the difficulty of designing questions so that they are both well understood and neutral, then I might have less concern. However, we have adopted no formal process for good ballot design which might constrain mistakes such as the ones which we have had and almost had on recent ballots. Designing ballots well can be tricky and the only criticism I make of those who have designed recent ballots is not consulting widely enough about their design.
The meetings on IRC were a chance for everyone to speak up related to the survey and its questions/layout. I took everything I was given into account and have others reviewing my work - but I repeat - I was told that we did not want to waste any more time discussing - it was time to make a decision.
The questions at issue in the foundation forming poll are not especially contentious but the process is of vital importance.
1. FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF BALLOT DESIGN.
Ballot design is so vital to any democratic process that it should not start with a small committee with no popular mandate for the task. How ballot questions are put naturally effects the outcome of any poll. Failing to make the ballot design process democratic at the beginning undermines the legitimacy and support being sought through an otherwise democratic election process.
Leaving ballot design to a small committee alone, especially when the whole electorate has not had an opportunity to choose the ballot design committee or representatives understood to be charged with forming a ballot design committee is a great mistake. If the whole electorate chooses a ballot design committee or representatives who's positions are understood to include appointing a ballot design committee, then the process could be demonstrably to be democratic. However, this has not happened.
2. DEMOCRACY AND EFFICIENCY.
Open democratic consideration of questions is not intended to be a maximally efficient process. Open democratic consideration of questions is intended to be a fair process which consults those affected by questions at issue.
There is something less efficient than democracy. A poll in which one is uncertain of the meaning of the results because we are uncertain whether the questions were well understood is less efficient than a democratic process where the questions have at least been reasonably considered in advance by those who are being asked to answer them in a ballot. Racing ahead with a closed ballot drafting process will be liable to retard progress afterwards, not advance it.
3. BALLOT CONSULTATION PROCESS.
You make the presumption that having general comment on the drafting of the ballot would be an unreasonable and interminable process. Yet you have not asked how one might propose to conduct such a process.
Start a thread on final ballot drafting in the Koha list with some main subject tag that may branch with variant subtopics. Post the first draft which your committee proposes and then give people a definite time limit in which to comment. Seven days may be a good time limit for the comment period and I would not suggest that the design issues are so problematic that any more than fourteen days should be set as the time limit. Try to post any revised drafts from the ballot design committee in the middle of the time period. The ballot committee members should certainly comment themselves.
[I have several suggestions for the ballot upon which I am working.]
After the comment time period has expired, then have the ballot committee produce a final version on which we will all vote. Even if the comments do not produce any changes in the final ballot produced by the ballot committee, it will have given the electorate a genuine opportunity to participate in how the poll is conducted.
There is nothing so vitally threatening to the Koha community that it will cease to exist if we take a week of additional time to have open participation in drafting a ballot on which everyone is being asked to vote.
There will necessarily be many ad hoc legacy processes which will persist until we have the time to consider and introduce more formal structures in those areas where more formal structures are actually needed. We should not start by undermining the popular voice in how a popular vote is conducted.
4. COROLLARY VOTING ISSUES.
In addition to ballot design, there are other issues about how what procedure is used when there is no absolute majority on a question which can have only one choice. We should no what will be done before the vote has taken place and not be choosing a method afterwords when the question arises.
The aim should be to maximise voter preferences and not eliminate preferences and choice with oversimplification. Ranked ballots allow sophisticated voting preference analysis to determine outcomes with a simple ballot but people need to understand the process.
See "Preferential voting", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting ; and other related articles such as "Condorcet method", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method , and "Schulze method" , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method in Wikipedia. Several software projects use the Schulze method and variations on it.
4. ACTUAL EFFECT.
I will explain in another thread thread that a Koha foundation cannot govern the development process in free software project because it would not be free software in such a case. However, popular vote should be able to decide key questions in areas in which people give it the resources, such as trademarks, internet domain names, and whatever else people contribute over which a Koha foundation could exercise control and use to the benefit of everyone.
Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
On Sun, October 11, 2009 22:10, Nicole Engard wrote:
Thomas,
This request - while I understand where it's coming from - is a bit unreasonable. If I were to submit the poll for review by everyone then we'd never get the official poll up and answered and move forward. That said, I am not working on the poll alone, there are several people helping me make all of the changes that were requested before.
Thanks Nicole
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
Nicole,
Please be certain to submit your draft of the final survey to the koha mailing list with ample time for public comment, correction, and amendment before it would go live. All Koha community ballots should be a matter of public discussion.
I raised the issue in more detail with reasons in an earlier message in this thread which you may not have yet had the opportunity to read while busy at the conference which you have been attending. See http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2009-October/020612.html .
Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
On Sun, October 11, 2009 13:58, Nicole Engard wrote:
I have been out of town, but I will get the final survey up early next week and we will see where the community stands and make a final decision and move forward with the plan to have a foundation behind Koha.
[...]
It is my understanding that this has been in discussion for years - and is only be rushed now because everyone it tired of discussing it to death and want to make a decision.
The meetings on IRC were a chance for everyone to speak up related to the survey and its questions/layout. I took everything I was given into account and have others reviewing my work - but I repeat - I was told that we did not want to waste any more time discussing - it was time to make a decision.
I concur. We've been discussing for ages. Now I think is the time for action. I'm sure not everyone will be happy with what we go with ( including myself ). However, at this point, I would rather have something I'm not completely happy with than nothing at all. Kyle http://www.kylehall.info Information Technology Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org ) On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
Nicole,
I certainly sense the urgency in the Koha community to move forward, however, we should not make the same mistake which brings us to this urgency in the first place. A party acting with too little consultation has left us with the problem which we are now facing. We cannot solve that problem by replacing one unilateral process with another.
It is my understanding that this has been in discussion for years - and is only be rushed now because everyone it tired of discussing it to death and want to make a decision.
Ultimately, much activity of the Koha community needs to be delegated to representatives through a democratic process so that not every decision is taken by the entire electorate. Some basic questions will always need a vote of the entire electorate.
If the design of previous ballots had not been so confused even given the difficulty of designing questions so that they are both well understood and neutral, then I might have less concern. However, we have adopted no formal process for good ballot design which might constrain mistakes such as the ones which we have had and almost had on recent ballots. Designing ballots well can be tricky and the only criticism I make of those who have designed recent ballots is not consulting widely enough about their design.
The meetings on IRC were a chance for everyone to speak up related to the survey and its questions/layout. I took everything I was given into account and have others reviewing my work - but I repeat - I was told that we did not want to waste any more time discussing - it was time to make a decision.
The questions at issue in the foundation forming poll are not especially contentious but the process is of vital importance.
1. FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF BALLOT DESIGN.
Ballot design is so vital to any democratic process that it should not start with a small committee with no popular mandate for the task. How ballot questions are put naturally effects the outcome of any poll. Failing to make the ballot design process democratic at the beginning undermines the legitimacy and support being sought through an otherwise democratic election process.
Leaving ballot design to a small committee alone, especially when the whole electorate has not had an opportunity to choose the ballot design committee or representatives understood to be charged with forming a ballot design committee is a great mistake. If the whole electorate chooses a ballot design committee or representatives who's positions are understood to include appointing a ballot design committee, then the process could be demonstrably to be democratic. However, this has not happened.
2. DEMOCRACY AND EFFICIENCY.
Open democratic consideration of questions is not intended to be a maximally efficient process. Open democratic consideration of questions is intended to be a fair process which consults those affected by questions at issue.
There is something less efficient than democracy. A poll in which one is uncertain of the meaning of the results because we are uncertain whether the questions were well understood is less efficient than a democratic process where the questions have at least been reasonably considered in advance by those who are being asked to answer them in a ballot. Racing ahead with a closed ballot drafting process will be liable to retard progress afterwards, not advance it.
3. BALLOT CONSULTATION PROCESS.
You make the presumption that having general comment on the drafting of the ballot would be an unreasonable and interminable process. Yet you have not asked how one might propose to conduct such a process.
Start a thread on final ballot drafting in the Koha list with some main subject tag that may branch with variant subtopics. Post the first draft which your committee proposes and then give people a definite time limit in which to comment. Seven days may be a good time limit for the comment period and I would not suggest that the design issues are so problematic that any more than fourteen days should be set as the time limit. Try to post any revised drafts from the ballot design committee in the middle of the time period. The ballot committee members should certainly comment themselves.
[I have several suggestions for the ballot upon which I am working.]
After the comment time period has expired, then have the ballot committee produce a final version on which we will all vote. Even if the comments do not produce any changes in the final ballot produced by the ballot committee, it will have given the electorate a genuine opportunity to participate in how the poll is conducted.
There is nothing so vitally threatening to the Koha community that it will cease to exist if we take a week of additional time to have open participation in drafting a ballot on which everyone is being asked to vote.
There will necessarily be many ad hoc legacy processes which will persist until we have the time to consider and introduce more formal structures in those areas where more formal structures are actually needed. We should not start by undermining the popular voice in how a popular vote is conducted.
4. COROLLARY VOTING ISSUES.
In addition to ballot design, there are other issues about how what procedure is used when there is no absolute majority on a question which can have only one choice. We should no what will be done before the vote has taken place and not be choosing a method afterwords when the question arises.
The aim should be to maximise voter preferences and not eliminate preferences and choice with oversimplification. Ranked ballots allow sophisticated voting preference analysis to determine outcomes with a simple ballot but people need to understand the process.
See "Preferential voting", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting ; and other related articles such as "Condorcet method", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method , and "Schulze method" , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method in Wikipedia. Several software projects use the Schulze method and variations on it.
4. ACTUAL EFFECT.
I will explain in another thread thread that a Koha foundation cannot govern the development process in free software project because it would not be free software in such a case. However, popular vote should be able to decide key questions in areas in which people give it the resources, such as trademarks, internet domain names, and whatever else people contribute over which a Koha foundation could exercise control and use to the benefit of everyone.
Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
On Sun, October 11, 2009 22:10, Nicole Engard wrote:
Thomas,
This request - while I understand where it's coming from - is a bit unreasonable. If I were to submit the poll for review by everyone then we'd never get the official poll up and answered and move forward. That said, I am not working on the poll alone, there are several people helping me make all of the changes that were requested before.
Thanks Nicole
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
Nicole,
Please be certain to submit your draft of the final survey to the koha mailing list with ample time for public comment, correction, and amendment before it would go live. All Koha community ballots should be a matter of public discussion.
I raised the issue in more detail with reasons in an earlier message in this thread which you may not have yet had the opportunity to read while busy at the conference which you have been attending. See http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2009-October/020612.html .
Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
On Sun, October 11, 2009 13:58, Nicole Engard wrote:
I have been out of town, but I will get the final survey up early next week and we will see where the community stands and make a final decision and move forward with the plan to have a foundation behind Koha.
[...]
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Kyle Hall <kyle.m.hall@gmail.com> wrote:
I concur. We've been discussing for ages. Now I think is the time for action. I'm sure not everyone will be happy with what we go with ( including myself ). However, at this point, I would rather have something I'm not completely happy with than nothing at all.
+1 Kind Regards, Chris Christopher Nighswonger Faculty Member Network & Systems Director Foundations Bible College & Seminary www.foundations.edu www.fbcradio.org
<monster snip> Just a couple of questions: Who gets to vote on these? I've seen something to the effect of "people who have made X number of contributions to the software" but that doesn't really include the users of Koha, does it? Ah, here it is: http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=relicensing Looks like it's just a few dozen people with a past/current connection to development. Do any of them do cataloging or circulation or reference in a library? And are you sure that what you are doing now is really action or is it reaction? I hear you've been talking about doing something along these lines for a long time, but to an outsider it really looks like this is all because you don't like what LibLime is doing. Thanks, -- Ben
Ben, This isn't a discussion of wiki re-licensing (that's another thread somewhere) - it's the issue of creating a foundation or joining a foundation. Notes here: http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=en:organisations:koha_project_organisation:... As for who can vote - anyone can vote - just like in the first run of the survey. Nicole On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
<monster snip>
Just a couple of questions:
Who gets to vote on these? I've seen something to the effect of "people who have made X number of contributions to the software" but that doesn't really include the users of Koha, does it?
Ah, here it is: http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=relicensing Looks like it's just a few dozen people with a past/current connection to development. Do any of them do cataloging or circulation or reference in a library?
And are you sure that what you are doing now is really action or is it reaction? I hear you've been talking about doing something along these lines for a long time, but to an outsider it really looks like this is all because you don't like what LibLime is doing.
Thanks, -- Ben _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Ah. See? I'm wrong again. :-) Thanks, Nicole. What's the time frame for the ballot going live? BTW, has the PDF link been replaced? No pressure if it hasn't -- you've been busy -- I just want to know if the new link also crashes my browser pane. -- Ben On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote:
Ben,
This isn't a discussion of wiki re-licensing (that's another thread somewhere) - it's the issue of creating a foundation or joining a foundation. Notes here: http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=en:organisations:koha_project_organisation:...
As for who can vote - anyone can vote - just like in the first run of the survey.
Nicole
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
<monster snip>
Just a couple of questions:
Who gets to vote on these? I've seen something to the effect of "people who have made X number of contributions to the software" but that doesn't really include the users of Koha, does it?
Ah, here it is: http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=relicensing Looks like it's just a few dozen people with a past/current connection to development. Do any of them do cataloging or circulation or reference in a library?
And are you sure that what you are doing now is really action or is it reaction? I hear you've been talking about doing something along these lines for a long time, but to an outsider it really looks like this is all because you don't like what LibLime is doing.
Thanks, -- Ben _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
The PDF on the wiki is the right one now. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah. See? I'm wrong again. :-) Thanks, Nicole.
What's the time frame for the ballot going live?
BTW, has the PDF link been replaced? No pressure if it hasn't -- you've been busy -- I just want to know if the new link also crashes my browser pane.
-- Ben
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote:
Ben,
This isn't a discussion of wiki re-licensing (that's another thread somewhere) - it's the issue of creating a foundation or joining a foundation. Notes here: http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=en:organisations:koha_project_organisation:...
As for who can vote - anyone can vote - just like in the first run of the survey.
Nicole
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
<monster snip>
Just a couple of questions:
Who gets to vote on these? I've seen something to the effect of "people who have made X number of contributions to the software" but that doesn't really include the users of Koha, does it?
Ah, here it is: http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=relicensing Looks like it's just a few dozen people with a past/current connection to development. Do any of them do cataloging or circulation or reference in a library?
And are you sure that what you are doing now is really action or is it reaction? I hear you've been talking about doing something along these lines for a long time, but to an outsider it really looks like this is all because you don't like what LibLime is doing.
Thanks, -- Ben _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply inline: On Mon, October 12, 2009 12:18, Kyle Hall wrote:
It is my understanding that this has been in discussion for years - and is only be rushed now because everyone it tired of discussing it to death and want to make a decision.
The meetings on IRC were a chance for everyone to speak up related to the survey and its questions/layout. I took everything I was given into account and have others reviewing my work - but I repeat - I was told that we did not want to waste any more time discussing - it was time to make a decision.
I concur. We've been discussing for ages. Now I think is the time for action. I'm sure not everyone will be happy with what we go with ( including myself ). However, at this point, I would rather have something I'm not completely happy with than nothing at all.
I am asking for only a one week comment period on a draft ballot which has not been discussed because it has not been seen, after which time we all accept whatever ballot Nicole and her committee produce. While a Koha foundation has been a subject of highly superficial brief occasional discussion for years, we have not had any opportunity as a whole community to have a discussion on the text of a ballot which is being interpreted by an electorate who have not had time to participate in our discussions. A few minutes in an IRC meeting with no current draft text to discuss is not the proper forum to ensure that mistakes are avoided. There is no outcome which will give us "nothing at all". I am asking for a week to discuss the ballot drafting with an actual draft text. A week does not seem to much to ask for a reasonable, open, and fair process over an issue which the drafters acknowledge themselves to have been a problem. The alternative to not having the ballot questions drafted as well as we can draft them collectively can be seen from the previous poll results. Without much more careful questions, we will not know the veracity of the responses on many questions. Most importantly without much more careful ballot questions, we may be more likely to have the majority choosing an "independent foundation now" without appreciating that other choices do not exclude an independent foundation after as short an interim period as we need. We should not be directing the choice in the questions but merely making the options clear. While we should not state it on the ballot, an "independent foundation now" option would be the slowest non-now option of the choices which would lead to months of discussion over location in which to register and bylaws before we could have a foundation. Kyle, you seemed to concur at least about the consequence of our choice of options, http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2009-October/020622.html, which I had explained briefly, http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2009-October/020598.html , A week to comment on a ballot draft after which time Nicole Engard puts up whatever ballot she and her committee decide to produce seems very little to ask for reducing the likelihood of the worst uncertainty in the outcome. Either we may avoid months of discussions without a foundation; or the majority will vote for an "independent foundation now" option, despite a well understood question, and then the week will matter very little in the months of discussion without a foundation which would follow. I do have some specific suggestions to put which I have not finished writing on each of the parts of the ballot but I am told that after the fact that a brief agenda item in an IRC meeting with no reference text is the only possibility that anyone would ever have. Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783 [...]
Reply inline: 1. GENERAL OFF TOPIC DISCUSSION. Original Subject: Re: [Koha] First things first for a Koha foundation On Mon, October 12, 2009 11:52, Nicole Engard wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
Nicole,
I certainly sense the urgency in the Koha community to move forward, however, we should not make the same mistake which brings us to this urgency in the first place. A party acting with too little consultation has left us with the problem which we are now facing. We cannot solve that problem by replacing one unilateral process with another.
It is my understanding that this has been in discussion for years - and is only be rushed now because everyone it tired of discussing it to death and want to make a decision.
There may be some fatigue at this point in some current discussion. However, the reason that advancing a Koha foundation is being rushed presently is that there have been significant recent problems in the community which some think the foundation may address, not because people have become tired of the occasional discussion over the years. Quite recently people had been complaining about the lack of discussion of forming a Koha foundation. Without the recent difficulties in the community, we might well be continuing as we had for more years with only occasional superficial discussions of forming a Koha foundation. The general consensus from people on #koha IRC channel which I have noticed had been that there has not been enough discussion on the mailing list about the various options for a foundation with people advocating for and against them. The belief seems widespread that the electorate is confused. Obviously, the electorate would be put off by contentious disagreements about process and procedure. Yet, contentious disagreements about process and procedure are part of democracy as well. I apologise to you, Nicole, and anyone else if my reaction about the the lack of a more open ballot drafting process has seemed overly strong. 2. OPEN SOURCE BALLOT DESIGN. I have great respect for the hard work which you and others have put into this process to this point. I simply think that we can do better and I would like to help. The issue for me in this message and my previous message to which you had replied is about open source ballot design to ensure we avoid some bugs in the design of ballot questions. I think that a strict one week calm discussion of a ballot draft on the mailing list will help clarify the issues on the ballot for everyone merely for having the discussion. Furthermore, I expect that it will help us move past the occasionally contentious debate about how to approach the problem of improper demonstration links on the community website which the community does not control. I expressed a different view from most in that discussion and then tried to redirect the course of discussion back to foundation forming issues. [...]
Designing ballots well can be tricky and the only criticism I make of those who have designed recent ballots is not consulting widely enough about their design.
The meetings on IRC were a chance for everyone to speak up related to the survey and its questions/layout. I took everything I was given into account and have others reviewing my work - but I repeat - I was told that we did not want to waste any more time discussing - it was time to make a decision.
The brief agenda item in the last general #koha IRC meeting was a chance to participate in discussing ballot design issues in which I certainly participated but the format of an IRC meeting is not sufficient in itself to consider the important questions of the wording of some text. Discussion of wording text such as for ballot design needs a longer format such as email in which complete examples can be presented and in which there is the opportunity for due reflection. I had raised an issue at the only previous IRC meeting to the last one in our current foundation forming process, yet it was my own fault for being too polite and not assertive enough when I was ignored. It is easy to miss people on IRC. Several people raised the issue of unclear, missing, and misplaced questions on this list in relation to the first ballot as soon as they had an opportunity to see it. Issues raised insluded: what is an OpenSearch portal for Koha; why was the Software Freedom Conservancy not on the list of foundation forming options when it had been included in the first wiki page of options, why was IFLA listed as a foundation forming option when it had been understood to be an option only for associating and not for housing a Koha project organisation even for an interim period. Other issues such as interim foundation forming options not excluding an independent Koha foundation after an interim period became much more apparent when we all speculated at how many people may have misinterpreted the intent of questions when studying the responses to the first poll. Does anyone think that more eyes make bugs shallow does not work for ballot design as well as program code? Why is open source good for the project software and documentation but not good for the ballot design process? Please show me the code. Nicole, I humbly request that you submit a draft of the final ballot for a strict one week comment period on the koha mailing list, after which time you and your ballot design committee put forward what ever ballot you decide. If that request seems too much for you, invite me to participate in your ballot design committee and I will be certain to post any drafts which I see to the mailing list and invite comment. If that secondary request still seems too much for you, please give myself and others time through Friday this week to present and comment on our own specific ideas for how the final ballot might be improved based on at least what we know about mistakes in how the previous ballot was designed. At Wednesday's IRC meeting it was announced, if I recall correctly, that two weeks would be taken to analyse the previous poll before a final ballot would be presented. That period should give sufficient time for most if not all of my suggestions to have an opportunity to have some effect on the drafting of a final ballot.
The questions at issue in the foundation forming poll are not especially contentious but the process is of vital importance.
My correct my own text after posting on the ballot design issue shows how easy it is to make mistakes when rushing, http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2009-October/020631.html . I described in reply to Kyle Hall why actually having well understood and neutral questions could be critical to reducing the time it takes to having a working foundation, http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2009-October/020658.html . There is other evidence from some participating directly in our various discussions at the moment that even those paying closest attention have some important confusion. Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783 [...]
Thomas Dukleth wrote:
However, the reason that advancing a Koha foundation is being rushed presently is that there have been significant recent problems in the community which some think the foundation may address, not because people have become tired of the occasional discussion over the years. [...]
Speak for yourself - I've been looking to put a sustainable vendor-neutral user-involving community organisation at the heart of the project for years. Yes, the LibLime communication cutback has probably motivated a few more people, but it's not a quick fix for the recent problems and I'm not sure anyone thinks it is.
The general consensus from people on #koha IRC channel which I have noticed had been that there has not been enough discussion on the mailing list about the various options for a foundation with people advocating for and against them. [...]
OK, so what do we do about this? Should we turn the wiki pages into some sort of consultation information brochure?
2. OPEN SOURCE BALLOT DESIGN. [...] Discussion of wording text such as for ballot design needs a longer format such as email in which complete examples can be presented and in which there is the opportunity for due reflection.
I've too much email already. The suggestion of longer emails really doesn't fill me with joy. [...]
Does anyone think that more eyes make bugs shallow does not work for ballot design as well as program code? Why is open source good for the project software and documentation but not good for the ballot design process? Please show me the code.
Well, it might not work as well because it's currently cheaper to test program code than it is to test survey design and this community has many more programmers than statisticians. I think the statisticians here are currently working as programmers, including me. (I gained a BSc with first class honours in Mathematics with Statistics, taught stats in HE and FE for a few years and also took a private sector opinion pollster's field training.) Are there other statisticians here? I suspect statistics is less obvious to most of the community than making a great Library Management System, but I think it's worth posting the ballot design and taking comments into account. I beg everyone to check that any suggested changes have some grounding in statistical theory before posting them, else the review process probably won't work because we'll get overloaded. I wrote http://people.debian.org/~mjr/surveys.html a few years ago which might interest some people. [...]
At Wednesday's IRC meeting it was announced, if I recall correctly, that two weeks would be taken to analyse the previous poll before a final ballot would be presented. That period should give sufficient time for most if not all of my suggestions to have an opportunity to have some effect on the drafting of a final ballot.
I feel that recollection is incorrect. No particular time was suggested, although I'd prefer it not to drag forever. Please check: http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/2009-10-07#i_316162 So: 1. do we need information brochure(s) about the options? - who will produce it/them? - who will referee it/them to make sure it's fair? - how should it be distributed? 2. are there other trained statisicians in our community? 3. how do we gather opinions on the survey design nicely? Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) LMS developer and webmaster at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:21 AM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Thomas Dukleth wrote:
However, the reason that advancing a Koha foundation is being rushed presently is that there have been significant recent problems in the community which some think the foundation may address, not because people have become tired of the occasional discussion over the years. [...]
Speak for yourself - I've been looking to put a sustainable vendor-neutral user-involving community organisation at the heart of the project for years. Yes, the LibLime communication cutback has probably motivated a few more people, but it's not a quick fix for the recent problems and I'm not sure anyone thinks it is.
Indeed, this has been discussed long before the current events began. I guess it has been a sort of call to action.
So:
1. do we need information brochure(s) about the options? - who will produce it/them? - who will referee it/them to make sure it's fair? - how should it be distributed?
How about MJ, Thomas, and the wiki ; )
2. are there other trained statisicians in our community?
I took a single stats class in college ( math minor ). About the most I can tell you is your chances of drawing a particular series of cards from a full deck.
3. how do we gather opinions on the survey design nicely?
Maybe have everyone post potential questions to a wiki page, limit the question posting period to a week or two.
Hope that helps,
I find you to always be insightful. A philosopher with a club, perhaps? Kyle
[Section 5.1 identifies an important voting preference problem which may be very likely to occur in our final poll.] Reply inline: On Tue, October 13, 2009 09:21, MJ Ray wrote: [...] 1. INFORMED VOTING.
Should we turn the wiki pages into some sort of consultation information brochure?
The wiki pages could be much easier to read in general but that is a different problem. The wiki pages will do if we use them. Before people initiate the ballot, they should be requested to examine the wiki pages and the mailing list archive to become an informed voter. [...] 2, TAKING COMMENTS INTO ACCUNT.
I suspect statistics is less obvious to most of the community than making a great Library Management System, but I think it's worth posting the ballot design and taking comments into account.
I am pleased that you are not opposed to some more input. I trust that you advise Nicole Engard well about which comments are worth incorporating and which would cause problems.
I beg everyone to check that any suggested changes have some grounding in statistical theory before posting them, else the review process probably won't work because we'll get overloaded. I wrote http://people.debian.org/~mjr/surveys.html a few years ago which might interest some people.
I really do not think that there will be very many comments overall. I doubt that many comments would even reach the level of skewing statistics. 3. IRC MEETING.
[...]
At Wednesday's IRC meeting it was announced, if I recall correctly, that two weeks would be taken to analyse the previous poll before a final ballot would be presented. That period should give sufficient time for most if not all of my suggestions to have an opportunity to have some effect on the drafting of a final ballot.
I feel that recollection is incorrect. No particular time was suggested, although I'd prefer it not to drag forever. Please check: http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/2009-10-07#i_316162
Checking the log it is not clear to me what the two week period referred to in that meeting had been intended to cover. Certainly there was a statement of giving time for analysis of the previous results, a two week period, and statements about informing the work for the next poll. What people are commenting about precisely can be difficult to determine. From the meeting I had expected that you would report some analysis of the previous poll to everyone which could be used to inform the writing of the final ballot. Had I thought that there would be no open opportunity to inform the process I would complained loudly at the meeting. This is the trouble with ambiguous references and assuming that others understand the same intent which you mean to convey. This is why the wording of the questions and options needs more eyes to find areas of misunderstanding. 4. INFORMATION SET.
So:
1. do we need information brochure(s) about the options? - who will produce it/them? - who will referee it/them to make sure it's fair? - how should it be distributed?
We could include a simple neutral one sentence descriptive statements next to each option on the ballot. Remember that koha.org has not had a prominent statement of Koha's origins with HLT for a few years. Few librarians would know that SPI was established to provide a legal entity for free software projects starting with Debian, the largest GNU/Linux distribution. Otherwise, the wiki and mailing list record will have to do for anything more unless someone is volunteering to work extra hard. 5. STATISTICAL PROBLEMS.
2. are there other trained statisicians in our community?
You may be the only one but that does not mean that you have anticipated every problem and the best ways to resolve them. You should inform Nicole from a broader base of input. I have read extensively on voting theory and maximising preferences years ago. That does not make me a trained statistician but no one in our community with valuable input should be ignored. We should strive to not let the patches fall on the floor. 5.1. VOTING PROBLEM. The vote on first choices for forming a foundation in the previous survey had an equal division between the "independent foundation now" option and what had been presented as alternatives in the previous survey. Have you considered how we should address the possibility that an absolute majority may be in favour of a range of interim foundation choices but the largest first rank vote count may be for "wait to agree on an independent foundation"? Which foundation forming option should we choose? Hypothetical first rank vote. Horowhenua Library Trust (HLT) for an interim period: 35% Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) for an interim period: 0% Software in the Public Interest (SPI) for an interim period: 20% Wait to agree on an independent foundation: 45% No opinion: 0% Hypothetical second rank vote. Horowhenua Library Trust (HLT) for interim an period: 60% Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) for an interim period: 0% Software in the Public Interest (SPI) for an interim period: 35% Wait to agree on an independent foundation: 5% No opinion: 0% Hypothetical third rank vote. Horowhenua Library Trust (HLT) for an interim period: 5% Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) for an interim period: 50% Software in the Public Interest (SPI) for an interim period: 40% Wait to agree on an independent foundation: 5% No opinion: 0% Hypothetical fourth rank vote. Horowhenua Library Trust (HLT) for an interim period: 5% Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) for an interim period: 35% Software in the Public Interest (SPI) for an interim period: 5% Wait to agree on an independent foundation: 55% No opinion: 0% Comparing each option to the other as if many two option ballots had been cast could show a stronger weight for one preference in what would become the critical comparison. Do you prefer HLT or "wait to agree on an independent foundation"? 5.1.1. RUN-OFF ELECTION REMEDY. An easy remedy in the absence of an absolute majority is holding a run-off poll with a single two option choice. Such a remedy would probably be the simplest to understand but it unfairly excludes other options which people may prefer without having a ballot of many options comparing each to the other. A ballot with many comparisons to the other can be difficult for people to understand. Any run-off election is an unnecessary extra poll to be conducted. However, some form of run-off election would be preferable to accepting a minority choice which merely happened to have more votes in a multi-option ballot. 5.1.2. PURE RANKED PREFERENCE REMEDY. A ranked preference ballot could elicit that information but people should know that is how it would be used. The Schulze method is a ranked preference analysis which might be used in comparing each choice to the other as if many ballots would be held with only two options, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method . This Schulze method is generally considered the fairest system for mathematically maximising people's preferences in voting. A modified Schulze method is used by the Debian project in voting but some of their modifications can distort the statistics to disfavour a majority vote in some circumstances. 5.1.3. PARTIAL RANKED PREFERENCE REMEDY. Another way of treating this particular issue as it can be anticipated is to break the question down by type of choice. What type of foundation forming option should we use to start a foundation? A. Form interim foundation while discussing an independent foundation following majority choice of interim home. (Exclude option B.) [ ] B. Only wait to agree on an independent foundation. (Exclude option A.) [ ] C. No opinion. [ ] All the options including the "wait to agree on an independent foundation" option could be listed on the next page for ranking. If an absolute majority would select A, then the largest preference for interim options would be selected. The Schulze method could still be used for comparing the preferences. 5.1.4. SIMPLEST REMEDY. A simple ranked ballot using the pure Schulze method would be easiest to understand and convey all preferences but it would need to be explained in advance how the rankings could work to reject an option which had no absolute majority but had the largest number of first rank preferences. 5.2. OTHER PROBLEMS. There are other problems but I really did not even have time to present this one today. 6. ANALYTICAL DISCUSSION.
3. how do we gather opinions on the survey design nicely?
This should be a thoroughly dispassionate analytical discussion. Obviously something went wrong in a recent discussion which had started reasonably but over an issue where we have no direct control. Having no direct control raises the sense of frustration. We will all be on guard to avoid harshness in our discourse. Criticism should never be taken personally. We have a great community which should not be afraid of discussion. Contention and disagreement conducted in a civil tone helps solve problems. Lack of discussion merely ignores problems without attempting to solve them. [...] Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
Okay - I consulted a group on IRC earlier and we've decided that this survey will ask only 2 questions and so does not need to be reviewed - there will be no misunderstanding. Once Nicolas has a chance to make sure I translated all strings to French I will send out the link and that will be that. Nicole On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
[Section 5.1 identifies an important voting preference problem which may be very likely to occur in our final poll.]
Reply inline:
On Tue, October 13, 2009 09:21, MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
1. INFORMED VOTING.
Should we turn the wiki pages into some sort of consultation information brochure?
The wiki pages could be much easier to read in general but that is a different problem. The wiki pages will do if we use them. Before people initiate the ballot, they should be requested to examine the wiki pages and the mailing list archive to become an informed voter.
[...]
2, TAKING COMMENTS INTO ACCUNT.
I suspect statistics is less obvious to most of the community than making a great Library Management System, but I think it's worth posting the ballot design and taking comments into account.
I am pleased that you are not opposed to some more input. I trust that you advise Nicole Engard well about which comments are worth incorporating and which would cause problems.
I beg everyone to check that any suggested changes have some grounding in statistical theory before posting them, else the review process probably won't work because we'll get overloaded. I wrote http://people.debian.org/~mjr/surveys.html a few years ago which might interest some people.
I really do not think that there will be very many comments overall. I doubt that many comments would even reach the level of skewing statistics.
3. IRC MEETING.
[...]
At Wednesday's IRC meeting it was announced, if I recall correctly, that two weeks would be taken to analyse the previous poll before a final ballot would be presented. That period should give sufficient time for most if not all of my suggestions to have an opportunity to have some effect on the drafting of a final ballot.
I feel that recollection is incorrect. No particular time was suggested, although I'd prefer it not to drag forever. Please check: http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/2009-10-07#i_316162
Checking the log it is not clear to me what the two week period referred to in that meeting had been intended to cover. Certainly there was a statement of giving time for analysis of the previous results, a two week period, and statements about informing the work for the next poll. What people are commenting about precisely can be difficult to determine. From the meeting I had expected that you would report some analysis of the previous poll to everyone which could be used to inform the writing of the final ballot. Had I thought that there would be no open opportunity to inform the process I would complained loudly at the meeting.
This is the trouble with ambiguous references and assuming that others understand the same intent which you mean to convey. This is why the wording of the questions and options needs more eyes to find areas of misunderstanding.
4. INFORMATION SET.
So:
1. do we need information brochure(s) about the options? - who will produce it/them? - who will referee it/them to make sure it's fair? - how should it be distributed?
We could include a simple neutral one sentence descriptive statements next to each option on the ballot. Remember that koha.org has not had a prominent statement of Koha's origins with HLT for a few years. Few librarians would know that SPI was established to provide a legal entity for free software projects starting with Debian, the largest GNU/Linux distribution.
Otherwise, the wiki and mailing list record will have to do for anything more unless someone is volunteering to work extra hard.
5. STATISTICAL PROBLEMS.
2. are there other trained statisicians in our community?
You may be the only one but that does not mean that you have anticipated every problem and the best ways to resolve them. You should inform Nicole from a broader base of input.
I have read extensively on voting theory and maximising preferences years ago. That does not make me a trained statistician but no one in our community with valuable input should be ignored. We should strive to not let the patches fall on the floor.
5.1. VOTING PROBLEM.
The vote on first choices for forming a foundation in the previous survey had an equal division between the "independent foundation now" option and what had been presented as alternatives in the previous survey.
Have you considered how we should address the possibility that an absolute majority may be in favour of a range of interim foundation choices but the largest first rank vote count may be for "wait to agree on an independent foundation"?
Which foundation forming option should we choose?
Hypothetical first rank vote.
Horowhenua Library Trust (HLT) for an interim period: 35% Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) for an interim period: 0% Software in the Public Interest (SPI) for an interim period: 20% Wait to agree on an independent foundation: 45% No opinion: 0%
Hypothetical second rank vote.
Horowhenua Library Trust (HLT) for interim an period: 60% Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) for an interim period: 0% Software in the Public Interest (SPI) for an interim period: 35% Wait to agree on an independent foundation: 5% No opinion: 0%
Hypothetical third rank vote.
Horowhenua Library Trust (HLT) for an interim period: 5% Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) for an interim period: 50% Software in the Public Interest (SPI) for an interim period: 40% Wait to agree on an independent foundation: 5% No opinion: 0% Hypothetical fourth rank vote.
Horowhenua Library Trust (HLT) for an interim period: 5% Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy) for an interim period: 35% Software in the Public Interest (SPI) for an interim period: 5% Wait to agree on an independent foundation: 55% No opinion: 0%
Comparing each option to the other as if many two option ballots had been cast could show a stronger weight for one preference in what would become the critical comparison. Do you prefer HLT or "wait to agree on an independent foundation"?
5.1.1. RUN-OFF ELECTION REMEDY.
An easy remedy in the absence of an absolute majority is holding a run-off poll with a single two option choice. Such a remedy would probably be the simplest to understand but it unfairly excludes other options which people may prefer without having a ballot of many options comparing each to the other.
A ballot with many comparisons to the other can be difficult for people to understand.
Any run-off election is an unnecessary extra poll to be conducted. However, some form of run-off election would be preferable to accepting a minority choice which merely happened to have more votes in a multi-option ballot.
5.1.2. PURE RANKED PREFERENCE REMEDY.
A ranked preference ballot could elicit that information but people should know that is how it would be used. The Schulze method is a ranked preference analysis which might be used in comparing each choice to the other as if many ballots would be held with only two options, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method .
This Schulze method is generally considered the fairest system for mathematically maximising people's preferences in voting.
A modified Schulze method is used by the Debian project in voting but some of their modifications can distort the statistics to disfavour a majority vote in some circumstances.
5.1.3. PARTIAL RANKED PREFERENCE REMEDY.
Another way of treating this particular issue as it can be anticipated is to break the question down by type of choice.
What type of foundation forming option should we use to start a foundation? A. Form interim foundation while discussing an independent foundation following majority choice of interim home. (Exclude option B.) [ ] B. Only wait to agree on an independent foundation. (Exclude option A.) [ ] C. No opinion. [ ]
All the options including the "wait to agree on an independent foundation" option could be listed on the next page for ranking. If an absolute majority would select A, then the largest preference for interim options would be selected. The Schulze method could still be used for comparing the preferences.
5.1.4. SIMPLEST REMEDY.
A simple ranked ballot using the pure Schulze method would be easiest to understand and convey all preferences but it would need to be explained in advance how the rankings could work to reject an option which had no absolute majority but had the largest number of first rank preferences.
5.2. OTHER PROBLEMS.
There are other problems but I really did not even have time to present this one today.
6. ANALYTICAL DISCUSSION.
3. how do we gather opinions on the survey design nicely?
This should be a thoroughly dispassionate analytical discussion. Obviously something went wrong in a recent discussion which had started reasonably but over an issue where we have no direct control. Having no direct control raises the sense of frustration. We will all be on guard to avoid harshness in our discourse.
Criticism should never be taken personally. We have a great community which should not be afraid of discussion. Contention and disagreement conducted in a civil tone helps solve problems. Lack of discussion merely ignores problems without attempting to solve them.
[...]
Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
[Reposted with a few corrections. Just my point about why we should avoid excess haste even when pursuing a matter urgently.] Nicole, I certainly sense the urgency in the Koha community to move forward, however, we should not make the same mistake which brings us to this urgency in the first place. A party acting with too little consultation has left us with the problem which we are now facing. We cannot solve that problem by replacing one unilateral process with another. Ultimately, much activity of the Koha community needs to be delegated to representatives through a democratic process so that not every decision is taken by the entire electorate. Some basic questions will always need a vote of the entire electorate. If the design of previous ballots had not been so confused even given the difficulty of designing questions so that they are both well understood and neutral, then I might have less concern. However, we have adopted no formal process for good ballot design which might constrain mistakes such as the ones which we have had and almost had on recent ballots. Designing ballots well can be tricky and the only criticism I make of those who have designed recent ballots is not consulting widely enough about their design. The questions at issue in the foundation forming poll are not especially contentious but the process is of vital importance. 1. FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF BALLOT DESIGN. Ballot design is so vital to any democratic process that it should not start with a small committee with no popular mandate for the task. How ballot questions are put naturally effects the outcome of any poll. Failing to make the ballot design process democratic at the beginning undermines the legitimacy and support being sought through an otherwise democratic election process. Leaving ballot design to a small committee alone, especially when the whole electorate has not had an opportunity to choose the ballot design committee or representatives understood to be charged with forming a ballot design committee, is a great mistake. If the whole electorate chooses a ballot design committee or representatives who's positions are understood to include appointing a ballot design committee, then the process could be demonstrated to be democratic. However, this has not happened. 2. DEMOCRACY AND EFFICIENCY. Open democratic consideration of questions is not intended to be a maximally efficient process. Open democratic consideration of questions is intended to be a fair process which consults those affected by questions at issue. There is something less efficient than democracy. A poll in which one is uncertain of the meaning of the results because we are uncertain whether the questions were well understood is less efficient than a democratic process where the questions have at least been reasonably considered in advance by those who are being asked to answer them in a ballot. Racing ahead with a closed ballot drafting process will be liable to retard progress afterwards, not advance it. 3. BALLOT CONSULTATION PROCESS. You make the presumption that having general comment on the drafting of the ballot would be an unreasonable and interminable process. Yet you have not asked how one might propose to conduct such a process. Start a thread on final ballot drafting in the Koha list with some main subject tag that may branch with variant subtopics. Post the first draft which your committee proposes and then give people a definite time limit in which to comment. Seven days may be a good time limit for the comment period and I would not suggest that the design issues are so problematic that any more than fourteen days should be set as the time limit. Try to post any revised drafts from the ballot design committee in the middle of the time period. The ballot committee members should certainly comment themselves. [I have several suggestions for the ballot upon which I am working.] After the comment time period has expired, then have the ballot design committee produce a final version on which we will all vote. Even if the comments do not produce any changes in the final ballot produced by the ballot design committee, it will have given the electorate a genuine opportunity to participate in how the poll is conducted. There is nothing so vitally threatening to the Koha community that it will cease to exist if we take a week of additional time to have open participation in drafting a ballot on which everyone is being asked to vote. There will necessarily be many ad hoc legacy processes which will persist until we have the time to consider and introduce more formal structures in those areas where more formal structures are actually needed. We should not start by undermining the popular voice in how a popular vote is conducted. 4. COROLLARY VOTING ISSUES. In addition to ballot design, there are other issues about what procedure is used when there is no absolute majority on a question which can have only one choice. We should know what will be done before the vote has taken place and not be choosing a method afterwords when the question arises. The aim should be to maximise voter preferences and not eliminate preferences and choice with oversimplification. Ranked ballots allow sophisticated voting preference analysis to determine outcomes with a simple ballot but people need to understand the process. See "Preferential voting", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting ; and other related articles such as "Condorcet method", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method , and "Schulze method" , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method in Wikipedia. Several software projects use the Schulze method and variations on it. 5. ACTUAL EFFECT. I will explain in another thread thread that a Koha foundation cannot govern the general development process in a free software project because it would not be free software in such circumstances. However, popular vote should be able to decide key questions in areas for which people give it the resources such as trademarks, internet domain names, and whatever else people contribute over which a Koha foundation could exercise control and use to the benefit of everyone. Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783 On Sun, October 11, 2009 22:10, Nicole Engard wrote:
Thomas,
This request - while I understand where it's coming from - is a bit unreasonable. If I were to submit the poll for review by everyone then we'd never get the official poll up and answered and move forward. That said, I am not working on the poll alone, there are several people helping me make all of the changes that were requested before.
Thanks Nicole
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
Nicole,
Please be certain to submit your draft of the final survey to the koha mailing list with ample time for public comment, correction, and amendment before it would go live. All Koha community ballots should be a matter of public discussion.
I raised the issue in more detail with reasons in an earlier message in this thread which you may not have yet had the opportunity to read while busy at the conference which you have been attending. See http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2009-October/020612.html .
Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
On Sun, October 11, 2009 13:58, Nicole Engard wrote:
I have been out of town, but I will get the final survey up early next week and we will see where the community stands and make a final decision and move forward with the plan to have a foundation behind Koha.
[...]
Hi Mark, 2009/10/11 Mark Osborne <mosborne@ashs.school.nz>:
The fork has occurred, and LL has the trademark and the domain. One unpleasant possibility is a rebirth for Koha. If LL owns the domain, they effectively own the trademark.
As I have pointed out previously: The domain follows the trademark according to precedence established by prior domain name disputes. The (US) trademark issue is contestable and probably with a good possibility of regaining it if (note the subjunctive) it finally comes down to that. It may (again note the subjunctive) be that when approached by an organization with vested authority to speak on the community's behalf, LL will hand over both. It would appear that talk of renaming, re-domaining Koha are premature. The real issue at hand is for the community to vest authority in an organization (HLT imho) ASAP. Then we can get on with the next urgent issue: that of trademark/domain name. Kind Regards, Chris
participants (7)
-
Ben Ide -
Chris Nighswonger -
Kyle Hall -
Mark Osborne -
MJ Ray -
Nicole Engard -
Thomas Dukleth