Re: [Koha] First things first for a Koha foundation
Can someone tell me what harm a one week comment period would be. Getting this wrong will set the process back a lot longer than one week. Edward Sent from my iPhone On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:04 PM, "Thomas Dukleth" <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote: 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 [...] _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:16 AM, Edward M Corrado <terrapin44@yahoo.com> wrote:
Can someone tell me what harm a one week comment period would be. Getting this wrong will set the process back a lot longer than one week.
One week seems entirely reasonable to me. As long as an end date is set, I think that's fine. The IRC meeting was an opportunity to speak up, true enough, but people might have missed the meeting for one reason or another, and people participating on IRC are not representative, maybe, of the entire community: this is a pretty geeky medium for many people. My 2 cts. Nicolas
Edward
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:04 PM, "Thomas Dukleth" <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
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
[...]
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Nicolas Morin Mobile: +33(0)633 19 11 36 http://www.biblibre.com
When I asked for more time to discuss our options I was told that we had taken too much time already. I am just repeating the sentiments of those on IRC when we discussed this. As for waiting and showing the survey I can do that - but let's not fool ourselves - it will take much longer than a week because everyone will want their changes made and there is no way I can make the changes suggested by 20+ community members and still have a good (short) survey. As far as I'm concerned we have too many questions so far - there should be 1 question in this survey - "Now that you've done your research, which organization would you like to align the Koha community with temporarily?" Please tell me what you all want - the survey is ready, but only being held back cause of all of this back and forth. Nicole On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Nicolas Morin <nicolas.morin@biblibre.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:16 AM, Edward M Corrado <terrapin44@yahoo.com> wrote:
Can someone tell me what harm a one week comment period would be. Getting this wrong will set the process back a lot longer than one week.
One week seems entirely reasonable to me. As long as an end date is set, I think that's fine. The IRC meeting was an opportunity to speak up, true enough, but people might have missed the meeting for one reason or another, and people participating on IRC are not representative, maybe, of the entire community: this is a pretty geeky medium for many people. My 2 cts. Nicolas
Edward
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:04 PM, "Thomas Dukleth" <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
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
[...]
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Nicolas Morin Mobile: +33(0)633 19 11 36 http://www.biblibre.com _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
I think the one question is enough. I for one plan to keep myself out of the kitchen. There are plenty of chefs there already. Kyle http://www.kylehall.info Information Technology Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org ) On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote:
When I asked for more time to discuss our options I was told that we had taken too much time already. I am just repeating the sentiments of those on IRC when we discussed this.
As for waiting and showing the survey I can do that - but let's not fool ourselves - it will take much longer than a week because everyone will want their changes made and there is no way I can make the changes suggested by 20+ community members and still have a good (short) survey.
As far as I'm concerned we have too many questions so far - there should be 1 question in this survey - "Now that you've done your research, which organization would you like to align the Koha community with temporarily?"
Please tell me what you all want - the survey is ready, but only being held back cause of all of this back and forth.
Nicole
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Nicolas Morin <nicolas.morin@biblibre.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:16 AM, Edward M Corrado <terrapin44@yahoo.com> wrote:
Can someone tell me what harm a one week comment period would be. Getting this wrong will set the process back a lot longer than one week.
One week seems entirely reasonable to me. As long as an end date is set, I think that's fine. The IRC meeting was an opportunity to speak up, true enough, but people might have missed the meeting for one reason or another, and people participating on IRC are not representative, maybe, of the entire community: this is a pretty geeky medium for many people. My 2 cts. Nicolas
Edward
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:04 PM, "Thomas Dukleth" <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
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
[...]
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Nicolas Morin Mobile: +33(0)633 19 11 36 http://www.biblibre.com _______________________________________________ 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
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Kyle Hall <kyle.m.hall@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the one question is enough. I for one plan to keep myself out of the kitchen. There are plenty of chefs there already.
Kyle has hit the nail on the head here: Too many cooks spoil the soup. Is there no one we can trust to provide us with some small direction here? Given the opportunity, each person who votes might present a different opinion. That is chaos. There are some fine examples in history of small appointed bodies producing governmental documents that the "masses" were able to lay hold of and support in spite of their various and varied differences. We have vested Nicole with this appointment. She has, in turn sought some consultation as she saw best in her judgment (which judgment we decided to trust when we vested her with that appointment.) Second guessing it now is effectively failing to back up the appointment we made. This has surely got to be a source of great discouragement to her and a hindrance to getting the job done. It is clear that she is very conscious of the opinions and concerns expressed in recent days. Doubtless these have been taken into consideration. I would humbly suggest that we now just let Nicole do the job we requested of her by appointing her to this task. Respectfully submitted with a smile and a light heart, Chris
Reply inline: Original Subject: Re: [Koha] First things first for a Koha foundation On Tue, October 13, 2009 12:53, Chris Nighswonger wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Kyle Hall <kyle.m.hall@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the one question is enough. I for one plan to keep myself out of the kitchen. There are plenty of chefs there already.
Kyle has hit the nail on the head here: Too many cooks spoil the soup.
This is not about adding more questions as such it is about helping to ensure that the existing questions are posed in a well understood and neutral manner. This is not about changing the recipe but about avoiding bugs in the way the questions are asked. Questions with bugs give answers contrary to the intent of both the questioner and the respondent.
It is clear that she is very conscious of the opinions and concerns expressed in recent days. Doubtless these have been taken into consideration.
[...] Chris, I suspect you may have changed your mind since you discussed the issue with me on the #koha IRC when realising just how difficult it is to write these questions well. That is the very reason Nicole needs more than the good guidance she already has. She and those working with her need actual example wording of questions. No small group of people can come up with the best ideas of how to implement something no matter how well they know the principles which they are trying to follow. We had been given two weeks from the IRC meeting on Wednesday to analyse the previous results. We should at least have until next Wednesday to put forward some suggestions which may help the process. I think that Nicole Engard, MJ Ray, and whoever else may be helping will do something reasonable in the end. If we only have reasonably well written questions, then we will be almost certain to be discussing bylaws and locations for an "independent foundation now" option for the next few months with no foundation now. An interim holding foundation is an actual foundation now option. We need much better than reasonably well written questions to avoid the delay of foundation discussions without even a running interim foundation. We need the help of everyone to discover how to make the issue clear. Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783 [...]
Hi Thomas, On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com>wrote:
Reply inline:
It is clear that she is very conscious of the opinions and concerns expressed in recent days. Doubtless these have been taken into consideration.
[...]
Chris, I suspect you may have changed your mind since you discussed the issue with me on the #koha IRC when realising just how difficult it is to write these questions well.
Actually, my mind has not changed so much as becoming resolved on its own course of action. You will remember that I expressed the same sentiments as those above to you at the conclusion of our conversation on irc last evening. I do have my own "opinions" about what should/should not appear on the ballot and how those items might be best worded. I have expressed those in a general way at various times. However, I have full confidence in the ability of Nicole to arrive at well-worded, objective, as-neutral-as-possible questions. After thoughtful reflection on the matter over night, I have posted what I thought would be my most helpful contribution to this issue encouraging us to get behind Nicole and let her do what we asked her to (which was not simply to be an amanuensis). As a matter of fact, I am willfully ceding my "right to personally word the ballot" (if there is such a thing) to her because I believe that is the responsible action in consideration of the need of the hour and the good of all involved. Furthermore, afaict, there is no general consensus emerging in favor of the "debate the ballot" subject. Kind Regards, Chris
Reply inline: On Tue, October 13, 2009 15:47, Chris Nighswonger wrote: [...]
Furthermore, afaict, there is no general consensus emerging in favor of the "debate the ballot" subject.
There is actually no clear consensus either way. Some have been opposed. Some have expressed that there should be no reason to object. Unfortunately, some who's answers might be interpreted as objecting were actually responding to a different issue. This is my very point that ensuring clear understanding of questions is important. In the time I have spent asking for time, I could at least have articulated my own thoughts at this point of specific question and option wording. I would need through Friday this week to present and offer revisions of my own suggested text. [I am neglecting other promises at this moment.] Surely people would give me and others interested even that time. There is a technical point about how we could end up with a choice to which the absolute majority is opposed. I believe that MJ Ray has experience with this problem but I do not know if he has considered the particular circumstances for how this issue may be likely to arise if not specifically addressed in the next ballot. Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
Nicole, Original Subject: Re: [Koha] First things first for a Koha foundation On Tue, October 13, 2009 12:30, Nicole Engard wrote:
When I asked for more time to discuss our options I was told that we had taken too much time already. I am just repeating the sentiments of those on IRC when we discussed this.
When we discussed this at the #koha IRC meeting, if I understood correctly, we were told that we would have two weeks from the last meeting to analyse the previous poll results. We should consequently have until Wednesday 21st, little more than a week from now, to discuss how to write the questions well whether or not we have a draft text to examine.
As for waiting and showing the survey I can do that - but let's not fool ourselves - it will take much longer than a week because everyone will want their changes made and there is no way I can make the changes suggested by 20+ community members and still have a good (short) survey.
I doubt that there will be 20 people taking an interest in ballot design but I would be pleased for more. You should have no obligation to use any suggestions. Some suggestions are liable to be contradictory. You should merely consider them and decide if you think that they would make an improvement. Someone has to actually decide and that person is you. I understand that it may take you time over the course of perhaps three days to consider and make changes. However, the total of a week and a half for comment and any revisions which you would make would be a very small price to pay for fairly avoiding months of discussion about "independent foundation now" bylaws without even an interim foundation. If we manage not to avoid that problem because people might choose that option in any case, then the week and a half will matter very little. An open process in the matter is more important than the actual outcome but I propose it to meet a practical need for obtaining the most clearly understood neutral questions possible in the hope of avoiding the least good outcome.
As far as I'm concerned we have too many questions so far - there should be 1 question in this survey - "Now that you've done your research, which organization would you like to align the Koha community with temporarily?"
We should not really be adding questions but are you proposing to take one option away? Would you exclude any option for those who may want not to have any foundation until an independent foundation could be agreed upon and established? The previous survey had 50% response in favour of an "independent foundation now" option. The trouble is we are doubtful if most people responding understood how long that misnamed option would actually take. Are you suggesting that we not give people the opportunity to choose an option which half of the people may actually have wanted, but we are merely doubtful given how the option was described? I think that it would be a mistake to remove options people may have wanted merely because we are worried about how long they would take to implement. I hope that people would not vote for such an option but I think that it would set a bad precedent to start denying choices to people. When I call for well understood questions, I do mean specifying the options for those questions in a well understood manner also.
Please tell me what you all want - the survey is ready, but only being held back cause of all of this back and forth.
I want time to comment with or without a draft text. Certainly comments will be better with a draft text. [...] Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
Nicole, Original Subject: Re: [Koha] First things first for a Koha foundation On Tue, October 13, 2009 12:30, Nicole Engard wrote:
When I asked for more time to discuss our options I was told that we had taken too much time already. I am just repeating the sentiments of those on IRC when we discussed this.
When we discussed this at the #koha IRC meeting, if I understood correctly, we were told that we would have two weeks from the last meeting to analyse the previous poll results. We should consequently have until Wednesday 21st, little more than a week from now, to discuss how to write the questions well whether or not we have a draft text to examine.
As for waiting and showing the survey I can do that - but let's not fool ourselves - it will take much longer than a week because everyone will want their changes made and there is no way I can make the changes suggested by 20+ community members and still have a good (short) survey.
I doubt that there will be 20 people taking an interest in ballot design but I would be pleased for more. You should have no obligation to use any suggestions. Some suggestions are liable to be contradictory. You should merely consider them and decide if you think that they would make an improvement. Someone has to actually decide and that person is you. I understand that it may take you time over the course of perhaps three days to consider and make changes. However, the total of a week and a half for comment and any revisions which you would make would be a very small price to pay for fairly avoiding months of discussion about "independent foundation now" bylaws without even an interim foundation. If we manage not to avoid that problem because people might choose that option in any case, then the week and a half will matter very little. An open process in the matter is more important than the actual outcome but I propose it to meet a practical need for obtaining the most clearly understood neutral questions possible in the hope of avoiding the least good outcome.
As far as I'm concerned we have too many questions so far - there should be 1 question in this survey - "Now that you've done your research, which organization would you like to align the Koha community with temporarily?"
We should not really be adding questions but are you proposing to take one option away? Would you exclude any option for those who may want not to have any foundation until an independent foundation could be agreed upon and established? The previous survey had 50% response in favour of an "independent foundation now" option. The trouble is we are doubtful if most people responding understood how long that misnamed option would actually take. Are you suggesting that we not give people the opportunity to choose an option which half of the people may actually have wanted, but we are merely doubtful given how the option was described? I think that it would be a mistake to remove options people may have wanted merely because we are worried about how long they would take to implement. I hope that people would not vote for such an option but I think that it would set a bad precedent to start denying choices to people. When I call for well understood questions, I do mean specifying the options for those questions in a well understood manner also.
Please tell me what you all want - the survey is ready, but only being held back cause of all of this back and forth.
I want time to comment with or without a draft text. Certainly comments will be better with a draft text. [...] Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
participants (7)
-
Chris Nighswonger -
Edward M Corrado -
Kyle Hall -
Nicolas Morin -
Nicole Engard -
Thomas Dukleth -
Thomas Dukleth