[Board] On constitutional re-engineering

[Dave McIlhagga]

Thanks Jo - appreciate the clarifications. It sounds like there might  
be something to this worth considering.

Dave



On 18-Jun-09, at 8:02 AM, Jo Walsh wrote:

>> Perhaps it is useful to recall why the membership model for OSGeo was
>> created in the form it has taken. It was designed from the Apache  
>> model for
>> meritocracy whereby recognition is given to individuals who have
>> demonstrated a high level of contribution to the foundation and it's
>> projects. In this way it ensures that the future of the  
>> organization is
>> shaped by those who have a proven record of the greatest commitment  
>> to the
>> Foundation.
>
> Well, the GNOME model (which I am admiring) does preserve the
> meritocracy aspect in a clear way - when applying for membership
> you point to SVN commits you've made (or open documentation
> you've published, or events you've organised, for non-coders who are
> actively involved).
>
> The ASF bylaws cover "Emeritus membership" in some detail,
> http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#4.1
> We have all this stuff in our bylaws (it looks close to a copy-paste)
> but we've never used it.
> We've never really used the second-class "Associate Membership"  
> either.
> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
>
> Neither our bylaws or ASF's place an upper limit on membership.
> An opening up of the membership would mean revision of
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Membership_Process
> but wouldn't impact the bylaws, or depart OSGeo from the spirit of  
> ASF.
>
> I'm recalling the situation last year where we set the new member  
> limit
> at Board level, then it turned out that only three more people than  
> the
> limit were recommended as members, that year. I don't think we would
> get an unrepresentative flood of new people - especially if it were  
> combined
> with an effective way to 'emeritise' old members who have drifted  
> away.
>
> Please bear in mind that my aim in this is to find ways to make
> the process simpler, not to delve into process-wank complexity.
> Easier to administer and easier to hop in and out of active  
> involvement.
> I think that opening up membership would encourage more people
> to get involved and contribute (to the goals of the foundation, beyond
> the goals of the projects).
>
> Arnulf, did we find a volunteer from the discuss list to run this
> year's election
> as mooted at the last Board meeting?
>
> cheers,
>
>
> jo
> --