[Koha] Foundation conversation

[Chris Nighswonger]

2010/10/15 ed c <terrapin44 at yahoo.com>

> I agree with Chris that getting it right is more important then rushing it,
>


This is a critical point. I hope no one in the community misses it. Any
person and/or organization involved in a hard press on this should be
suspect.


> but that said, it should not be pushed back for long.


This is true as well. We do have a bit of a history of taking a long time on
decisions. ie. licensing change


> I do not think David Lang's concerns about Koha are unique to him.


I do think that David Lang's concerns are unique to him. As Bob mentioned in
his response, the Koha community is vibrant and growing. The fact that a
large vendor went rogue and another non-FOSS ILS resulted does not imply
instability or otherwise in Koha. The facts speak for themselves here.


> I assume even if some other entity then a Koha Foundation was to hold
> community property their still would be a need to some governance structure.


This matter has already been decided once. The community has established
rules to govern the choosing of a body of representatives (call these by
whatever term fits clearest into your understanding. ie. board, committee,
foobar, etc.) Those rules may be reviewed here:
http://koha-community.org/koha-project-organization/horowhenua-library-trust-koha-committee-rules/

Regardless of the flavor of resulting organization, there is really no need
to rehash how to choose leadership. We are only backing up and wasting time.
(Remember? We tend to move slowly.)

We must also remember that Koha does not rise or fall on the support or lack
thereof by PTFS. The Koha community in no way revolves around PTFS. Many
seem to think that we should somehow strive to come to a common ground with
PTFS in order to move forward. This is a counterproductive attitude and only
serves to ultimately subjugate Koha to PTFS in thought if not in practice.
And since practice is not far behind thought, we need to nip this thought in
the bud and move on. (And as far as assets go, since the community has
chosen to move to a different domain, PTFS really owns no assets which are
of significant interest to the community.) It is PTFS who must reconcile
themselves with the community they have, to this hour, largely offended.

The basic beliefs and philosophy of the community concerning "governance"
have already be set forth in the committee rules which were hashed out and
voted on by the community. PTFS needs to amend their proposal taking in
consideration those beliefs and principles if they desire serious
consideration of such a proposal.

The Koha Committee is the foundation upon which we need to build. To backup
and rehearse again the agony of those decisions is counterproductive and
injurious, not to mention a smack-in-the-face to those who invested great
time and effort into researching, educating, and formulating these
documents.

Kind Regards,
Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/attachments/20101015/0ca964eb/attachment.htm