[Koha] First things first for a Koha foundation

[Thomas Dukleth]

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

[...]