Fwd: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen foundation (again)
For those of you who are interested in establishing a Koha foundation, this may be of interest. The Evergreen folks are trying to do the same. Perhaps we can learn from each other in true open source fashion. Vicki ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hyman, Ben EDUC:EX <Ben.Hyman@gov.bc.ca> Date: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen foundation (again) To: open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org I concur entirely with Dan (thanks for reviving this discussion Dan), and would love to see the community celebrating the creation of just such a Foundation at the conference in Grand Rapids. Perhaps that's being unrealistic, but sooner is better, IMHO. I suppose Foundation establishment should precede celebration...perhaps an exploratory work group could be nominated by the community? Ben Hyman Manager, Library Policy & Technology Public Library Services Branch, Ministry of Education, BC Phone 250.387.4043 or Toll Free 800.663.7051 ben.hyman@gov.bc.ca <mailto:ben.hyman@gov.bc.ca> www.bced.gov.bc.ca/pls/ <http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/pls/> From: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> Date: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:22 PM Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen foundation (again) To: Evergreen Discussion Group <open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org> There was a brief discussion shortly after the Evergreen Conference about the possibility of setting up an Evergreen Software Foundation [1] and most recently a proposal to set up a joint Koha + Evergreen foundation (which is probably a function better served by something like http://www.code4lib.org/<; http://www.code4lib.org/> in any case). I posted a response to George's blog post [2] about the difficulties that the Koha community has undergone recently and their renewed effort to establish a foundation, but in that context I would like to revive the discussion about an Evergreen Software Foundation by suggesting that if such an entity is formed, it should roughly have the following responsibilities: * Hold the trademarks, logos, and evergreen-ils.org/open-ils.org related collateral in trust for the use of the community * Extend the community's development capacity (for example, by funding the creation of developer training tutorials and workshops, where development should be defined broadly to include documentation, usability, design, testing, etc) * Coordinate joint funding for the development of new features * Organize the Evergreen International Conferences Further, I suggest that we would be foolish to turn down the Software Freedom Conservancy's [3] offer to serve, for free, as the 501(c)(3) [4] shell organization that would be able to hold the collateral and financial assets in trust for the foundation, and would accept donations to the foundation and maintain corporate records and file the tax return (again, for free). It has been stated several times that "it's not that hard to file the paperwork for a 501(c)(3)", but I would argue that an advantage of the Software Freedom Conservancy is that it is a neutral entity. [1]. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.education.libraries.open-ils.general/1258<; http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.education.libraries.open-ils.general/1258> [2]. http://www.parser.ca/z678/2009/09/16/koha-manoeuvres/ < http://www.parser.ca/z678/2009/09/16/koha-manoeuvres/> [3]. http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/ < http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/> - "As a fiscal sponsor for FOSS projects, the Conservancy provides member projects with free financial and administrative services, but does not involve itself with technological and artistic decisions." [4]. As a Canadian, I don't care about 501(c)(3) status because I get no tax advantages from it. -- Vicki Teal Lovely Software Applications Supervisor South Central Library System vtl@scls.lib.wi.us (608)261-9109
Interesting... Can anyone think of a reason why a joint effort between the two groups would be a good/bad idea? Are the two groups too different to form a collective foundation? Thanks for reposting this. -- Ben 2009/9/18 vtl@scls.lib.wi.us <vtl@scls.lib.wi.us>:
For those of you who are interested in establishing a Koha foundation, this may be of interest. The Evergreen folks are trying to do the same. Perhaps we can learn from each other in true open source fashion.
Vicki
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hyman, Ben EDUC:EX <Ben.Hyman@gov.bc.ca> Date: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen foundation (again) To: open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org
I concur entirely with Dan (thanks for reviving this discussion Dan), and would love to see the community celebrating the creation of just such a Foundation at the conference in Grand Rapids. Perhaps that's being unrealistic, but sooner is better, IMHO. I suppose Foundation establishment should precede celebration...perhaps an exploratory work group could be nominated by the community?
Ben Hyman Manager, Library Policy & Technology Public Library Services Branch, Ministry of Education, BC Phone 250.387.4043 or Toll Free 800.663.7051 ben.hyman@gov.bc.ca <mailto:ben.hyman@gov.bc.ca> www.bced.gov.bc.ca/pls/ <http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/pls/>
From: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
Date: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen foundation (again)
To: Evergreen Discussion Group <open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>
There was a brief discussion shortly after the Evergreen Conference about the possibility of setting up an Evergreen Software Foundation [1] and most recently a proposal to set up a joint Koha + Evergreen foundation (which is probably a function better served by something like http://www.code4lib.org/ <http://www.code4lib.org/> in any case).
I posted a response to George's blog post [2] about the difficulties that the Koha community has undergone recently and their renewed effort to establish a foundation, but in that context I would like to revive the discussion about an Evergreen Software Foundation by suggesting that if such an entity is formed, it should roughly have the following responsibilities:
* Hold the trademarks, logos, and evergreen-ils.org/open-ils.org related collateral in trust for the use of the community
* Extend the community's development capacity (for example, by funding the creation of developer training tutorials and workshops, where development should be defined broadly to include documentation, usability, design, testing, etc)
* Coordinate joint funding for the development of new features
* Organize the Evergreen International Conferences
Further, I suggest that we would be foolish to turn down the Software Freedom Conservancy's [3] offer to serve, for free, as the 501(c)(3) [4] shell organization that would be able to hold the collateral and financial assets in trust for the foundation, and would accept donations to the foundation and maintain corporate records and file the tax return (again, for free). It has been stated several times that "it's not that hard to file the paperwork for a 501(c)(3)", but I would argue that an advantage of the Software Freedom Conservancy is that it is a neutral entity.
[1]. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.education.libraries.open-ils.general/1258 <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.education.libraries.open-ils.general/1258>
[2]. http://www.parser.ca/z678/2009/09/16/koha-manoeuvres/ <http://www.parser.ca/z678/2009/09/16/koha-manoeuvres/>
[3]. http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/ <http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/> - "As a fiscal sponsor for FOSS projects, the Conservancy provides member projects with free financial and administrative services, but does not involve itself with technological and artistic decisions."
[4]. As a Canadian, I don't care about 501(c)(3) status because I get no tax advantages from it.
-- Vicki Teal Lovely
Software Applications Supervisor South Central Library System vtl@scls.lib.wi.us (608)261-9109
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Hi all, I think forming a combined 'open source in libraries' foundation is definitely worth considering. I don't know much about Code4Lib as an organisation, but is that a body tat may have arole to play here? I need more information! Cheers Jo. On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:09 AM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting...
Can anyone think of a reason why a joint effort between the two groups would be a good/bad idea? Are the two groups too different to form a collective foundation?
Thanks for reposting this. -- Ben
For those of you who are interested in establishing a Koha foundation,
may be of interest. The Evergreen folks are trying to do the same. Perhaps we can learn from each other in true open source fashion.
Vicki
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hyman, Ben EDUC:EX <Ben.Hyman@gov.bc.ca> Date: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen foundation (again) To: open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org
I concur entirely with Dan (thanks for reviving this discussion Dan), and would love to see the community celebrating the creation of just such a Foundation at the conference in Grand Rapids. Perhaps that's being unrealistic, but sooner is better, IMHO. I suppose Foundation establishment should precede celebration...perhaps an exploratory work group could be nominated by the community?
Ben Hyman Manager, Library Policy & Technology Public Library Services Branch, Ministry of Education, BC Phone 250.387.4043 or Toll Free 800.663.7051 ben.hyman@gov.bc.ca <mailto:ben.hyman@gov.bc.ca> www.bced.gov.bc.ca/pls/ <http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/pls/>
From: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
Date: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen foundation (again)
To: Evergreen Discussion Group < open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>
There was a brief discussion shortly after the Evergreen Conference about the possibility of setting up an Evergreen Software Foundation [1] and most recently a proposal to set up a joint Koha + Evergreen foundation (which is probably a function better served by something like http://www.code4lib.org/ <http://www.code4lib.org/> in any case).
I posted a response to George's blog post [2] about the difficulties that the Koha community has undergone recently and their renewed effort to establish a foundation, but in that context I would like to revive the discussion about an Evergreen Software Foundation by suggesting that if such an entity is formed, it should roughly have the following responsibilities:
* Hold the trademarks, logos, and evergreen-ils.org/open-ils.org related collateral in trust for the use of the community
* Extend the community's development capacity (for example, by funding
creation of developer training tutorials and workshops, where development should be defined broadly to include documentation, usability, design, testing, etc)
* Coordinate joint funding for the development of new features
* Organize the Evergreen International Conferences
Further, I suggest that we would be foolish to turn down the Software Freedom Conservancy's [3] offer to serve, for free, as the 501(c)(3) [4] shell organization that would be able to hold the collateral and financial assets in trust for the foundation, and would accept donations to the foundation and maintain corporate records and file the tax return (again, for free). It has been stated several times that "it's not that hard to file the paperwork for a 501(c)(3)", but I would argue that an advantage of
2009/9/18 vtl@scls.lib.wi.us <vtl@scls.lib.wi.us>: this the the
Software Freedom Conservancy is that it is a neutral entity.
[1]. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.education.libraries.open-ils.general/1258 <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.education.libraries.open-ils.general/1258
[2]. http://www.parser.ca/z678/2009/09/16/koha-manoeuvres/ <http://www.parser.ca/z678/2009/09/16/koha-manoeuvres/>
[3]. http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/ <http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/> - "As a fiscal sponsor for FOSS projects, the Conservancy provides member projects with free financial and administrative services, but does not involve itself with technological and artistic decisions."
[4]. As a Canadian, I don't care about 501(c)(3) status because I get no tax advantages from it.
-- Vicki Teal Lovely
Software Applications Supervisor South Central Library System vtl@scls.lib.wi.us (608)261-9109
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Joann Ransom RLIANZA Acting Head of Libraries, Horowhenua Library Trust.
Joann Ransom <jransom@library.org.nz> wrote:
I think forming a combined 'open source in libraries' foundation is definitely worth considering. I don't know much about Code4Lib as an organisation, but is that a body tat may have arole to play here? I need more information!
I thought code4lib was a conference, email list and website, not a non-profit corporation, so turning that into a FOSS-for-libraries association (please not a foundation) would be about the same amount of work. Sharing overheads would be good, but I wonder if the different history of Evergreen may mean the communities are too different, that we would be looking for different things. For example, conferences and extending development seem high on their list of priorities, but not near the top of our doodle straw-poll. That may just be because we've had independent conferences and new developers often already. Probably worth exploring though. Anyone willing to try leading that effort? If so, please add it to http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=kohaheldbyfoundation in the "New FOSS Libraries association or foundation" column. Thanks, -- 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, Sep 22, 2009 at 5:39 AM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Joann Ransom <jransom@library.org.nz> wrote:
I think forming a combined 'open source in libraries' foundation is definitely worth considering. I don't know much about Code4Lib as an organisation, but is that a body tat may have arole to play here? I need more information!
I thought code4lib was a conference, email list and website, not a non-profit corporation, so turning that into a FOSS-for-libraries association (please not a foundation) would be about the same amount of work.
Sharing overheads would be good, but I wonder if the different history of Evergreen may mean the communities are too different, that we would be looking for different things. For example, conferences and extending development seem high on their list of priorities, but not near the top of our doodle straw-poll. That may just be because we've had independent conferences and new developers often already.
Probably worth exploring though. Anyone willing to try leading that effort? If so, please add it to http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=kohaheldbyfoundation in the "New FOSS Libraries association or foundation" column.
Code4Lib members have typically resisted formalization of the community structure overall, while still supporting more defined working subunits (Conference planning, T-shirt committee, the Journal, etc.). We are likely to find allies in that group, but not a home for a Koha Foundation. I think there should be some Koha association (call it "Koha Foundation", "Koha Core", "Koha Crew", "Kohaxors Intl." -- the name is unimportant to me) to serve as the more democratic and active version of what was initially conceived as the role of Kaitiaki. This seems to me the natural fit, and not overreaching. If there is a joining of forces between Koha and Evergreen, I think it should be (at least at first) as a working group, at a low level. "What can we do to help each other? What code components can we share?" It is far too soon to talk about merging projects or codebases... let alone hypothetical foundational bodies. It does not seem reasonable to expect the high level foundation/governance questions to be ironed out simultaneously between both communities when neither has them clarified internally. Indeed, like MJ, I suspect that neither community would much appreciate a formal governance body, in particular since it is hard to see where it would get (1) resources or (2) developers. Even if a unified body promoted both ILS's, I would still want individual groups that focused on each project, so basically, I think each community should pursue it's own group. In fact, I can see broader FOSS4LIB type group forming and being active (over more than these 2 projects) more quickly and more effectively than a Koha/Evergreen group (over *just* those 2 projects). --Joe Atzberger
Hi all, I like what Atz is saying here and agree. HLT and Katipo are also watching this debate very carefully with regards to Kete which is slowly building as a community. (kete.net.nz) I too am worried about trying to formalize this Koha governance to much. I think librarians do tend to try and over organise things although we are very good at sharing. The OS developers are like thoroughbreds and need a really light rein! I also think that it will be hard to have any teeth and in how will it actually govern when anyone can decide to fork-off anytime they like. Goodwill and collaboration and peer pressure are the tools which will work. However, that isn't to say that someone relatively laid back and neutral (HLT) shouldn't step up and take steps to secure the domain name, trademarks etc for the greater Koha community to use and own. Keeping them safe from misuse if you like. I like the model which has worked surprisingly well over the last decade, other than this last big hiccup, and don't really want to throw the baby away with the bathwater. The model may need tweaking rather than abandoning. Cheers Jo. Joe Atzberger wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 5:39 AM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop <mailto:mjr@phonecoop.coop>> wrote:
Joann Ransom <jransom@library.org.nz <mailto:jransom@library.org.nz>> wrote: > I think forming a combined 'open source in libraries' foundation is > definitely worth considering. I don't know much about Code4Lib as an > organisation, but is that a body tat may have arole to play here? I need > more information!
I thought code4lib was a conference, email list and website, not a non-profit corporation, so turning that into a FOSS-for-libraries association (please not a foundation) would be about the same amount of work.
Sharing overheads would be good, but I wonder if the different history of Evergreen may mean the communities are too different, that we would be looking for different things. For example, conferences and extending development seem high on their list of priorities, but not near the top of our doodle straw-poll. That may just be because we've had independent conferences and new developers often already.
Probably worth exploring though. Anyone willing to try leading that effort? If so, please add it to http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=kohaheldbyfoundation in the "New FOSS Libraries association or foundation" column.
Code4Lib members have typically resisted formalization of the community structure overall, while still supporting more defined working subunits (Conference planning, T-shirt committee, the Journal, etc.). We are likely to find allies in that group, but not a home for a Koha Foundation.
I think there should be some Koha association (call it "Koha Foundation", "Koha Core", "Koha Crew", "Kohaxors Intl." -- the name is unimportant to me) to serve as the more democratic and active version of what was initially conceived as the role of Kaitiaki. This seems to me the natural fit, and not overreaching.
If there is a joining of forces between Koha and Evergreen, I think it should be (at least at first) as a working group, at a low level. "What can we do to help each other? What code components can we share?" It is far too soon to talk about merging projects or codebases... let alone hypothetical foundational bodies.
It does not seem reasonable to expect the high level foundation/governance questions to be ironed out simultaneously between both communities when neither has them clarified internally. Indeed, like MJ, I suspect that neither community would much appreciate a formal governance body, in particular since it is hard to see where it would get (1) resources or (2) developers. Even if a unified body promoted both ILS's, I would still want individual groups that focused on each project, so basically, I think each community should pursue it's own group.
In fact, I can see broader FOSS4LIB type group forming and being active (over more than these 2 projects) more quickly and more effectively than a Koha/Evergreen group (over *just* those 2 projects).
--Joe Atzberger ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Joann Ransom <jransom@library.org.nz> wrote:
I too am worried about trying to formalize this Koha governance to much. I think librarians do tend to try and over organise things although we are very good at sharing.
There's a balance to be struck, but at the moment, it feels like there are many structures but they are hidden from new users. I think this is what's sometimes called Structurelessness, but I could be wrong.
[...] I also think that it will be hard to have any teeth and in how will it actually govern when anyone can decide to fork-off anytime they like. Goodwill and collaboration and peer pressure are the tools which will work.
It's not hard to govern, but it's not the contract-and-command system typical of the private sector. There's a whole business sector built around voluntary membership as its first principle. Just 6 companies from that sector account for over an eighth of New Zealand's 2008 GDP [global300.coop]. I feel that goodwill and collaboration will work, but peer pressure probably won't: pressure someone too much and they'll go away for a while or maybe permanently. The best way to give it authority is to offer some benefits to participants: for us longer-time contributing developers, avoiding repeating certain bits of history is probably enough of a benefit, but what's in it for new developers?
However, that isn't to say that someone relatively laid back and neutral (HLT) shouldn't step up and take steps to secure the domain name, trademarks etc for the greater Koha community to use and own. Keeping them safe from misuse if you like. [...]
I think the problem with trusts in England is that they do not necessarily have an asset lock, according to http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1077475743 An asset lock is required to keep those things safe from misuse. Is that different in NZ? Does HLT have an asset lock? Can a link be added to http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=kohaheldbyfoundation ? I saw a comment from someone which reminded me that some promises specifically mentioned "Koha Software Foundation" and nothing else. So, which of the domain name and trademark holders are willing to assign or perpetually license them to HLT? I'd have to ask to be sure, but I think software.coop would license our rights to HLT as soon as we and our legal advisors developed suitable terms. Regards, -- 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
participants (5)
-
Ben Ide -
Joann Ransom -
Joe Atzberger -
MJ Ray -
vtl＠scls.lib.wi.us