I think this comes in as part of the "Dangerous Idea" of an attitude of abundance. Open Source is based - sociologically speaking - on a gift culture. Libraries, too, I think - we are a gift culture. Not to say we can't mount money-making propositions or alternative ideas for funding; but generally speaking, we're not in it for the "get" but for the "give." I think it's high time for libraries to embrace that, stop trying to out-business business, and think of new ways to be an example of the culture of abundance. Open source is decidedly a part of that, in my mind.

Many of my colleagues, I know, do not agree with me. They see open source as a "homegrown" system that is "so in the past." They see risk. (And I have to say - as someone who is a cataloger by nature, I didn't think I would ever find anyone more risk-averse than myself.) I also think they are afraid to take responsibility for our own data and our own service, and would rather blame a shoddy legacy system for our problems. But Howard County is proving that we don't need to buy software to provide service. We just need to be willing to take some risks, make some mistakes, have fun, and think for ourselves.

I, for one, welcome the idea.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Unpacking the slack :) My observations have been that there are staff who spend a lot of time judging other staff and not seeking to support each other. So, when mistakes are made or issues arise, staff don't trust each other enough to work through the issues effectively. Would we be bigger risk takers and problem solvers if we felt like we would receive support from each other regardless of the outcome?

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

The reverse of this would be .... what if we became Internet cafes with books (and other materials). Open source could provide us and our customers with more flexibility when it comes to allocating resources.

2  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

Throughout the 90's I was the director of an adult literacy program for a library in California. The only guaranteed funding was for my salary and since I didn't want to be the lone ranger, we had to get very creative about raising funding. By the time I left, our annual budget was $1.2 million from a combination of grants for innovative services and research, contracts with other county departments like Corrections and Alcohol Rehab, and donations.

While that model required a ton of heavy lifting and long hours and isn't one I would advocate 100%, it DID lead us to think about our work very creatively, and to engage in some very innovative partnerships. Perhaps a secondary question is,

"If we stopped depending on government funding, how would that impact the variety of services we offer (note: you aren't allowed to say "we'd quit offering services" since the idea is to think about the opportunities that this "uncomfortable thinking" might stimulate)?

AND

"If we stopped depending on government funding, how would that impact the relationship we have with our community and the partnerships that we would cultivate?"

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Rivkah, If we had dream meetings would those be the only ones anyone would want to attend? I know that I tend to be more invigorated by that type of meeting rather then the action or do ones.

Meeting blogs sound like something to try -- might save the time taken to get together for a meeting which is entirely unproductive.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?