-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 822
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add a Consortium type #1559
Comments
Moved latter to its own issue #1559. This leaves it open for particular LibrarySystems to be described as a Consortium without making the sweeping statement that they all are. We may also want to give future attention to the idea that such systems occur within libraries.
See #1539 for examples |
I saw there was already some extensive conversation in #1495 and it's hard to follow. It would be helpful to spell out the key benefits of a new Consortium type based on the conversation as it seems as though parent and sub-orgs are generic enough to handle this use case—though like I said there's quite a bit of detailed discussion which would need to be absorbed from the linked issue in order to understand the true benefit of adding a new type. |
Circling back to this... we misplaced the common use case itself, not that of any legal relationships, but instead "to collaborate or share resources among members". Wikipedia has the definition being "A consortium is an association of two or more individuals, companies, organizations or governments (or any combination of these entities) with the objective of participating in a common activity or pooling their resources for achieving a common goal". - and I highly suggest reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium The Latin etymology is interesting. For profit example: Non profit example:
I would much rather see our Consortium type (which can be used for profit, like Banks, and non-profit organizations, like Libraries) mention something about "collaborating or sharing" and to cover it all, something like: "A membership Organization whose members collaborate or pool their resources together to achieve a common goal, and which might involve the ideas of coopetition, rather than competition, for the strategic benefit between all members. Some members still might compete in other areas." |
I agree that the current description is a little lacking. Your suggestion and reference to Wikipedia are a good start to its improvement. I think references to strategic benefit and and competition may unnecessarily raise questions for those thinking of applying it. How about: A membership Organization of two or more individuals or organizations of any type, who collaborate with the objective of participating in a common activity or pooling their resources for achieving a common goal. |
This issue is being tagged as Stale due to inactivity. |
This was originally suggested via the #1495 proposal of LibrarySystem but has broader use, and its use for LibrarySystem may not be a good fit.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: