[OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

Mon Aug 3 10:29:22 PDT 2015

+1 Frank's statement

It is a great summary and I also want to compliment OSGeo on maintaining
diversity in Board and Officers both in country of origin and companies
people work for in all these years, it is an organization I am proud to be
a humble little part of.

If there is something that I think could be better in the future it might
be:
- More women present in the board although this should go naturally and not
forced
- broader representation for Asia and Africa, but again, this should grow
organic

But that is just my opinion and I feel in no way privileged to tell others
what to do.

Kind regards,

Milo
On Aug 3, 2015 6:44 PM, "Stephen Woodbridge" <woodbri at swoodbridge.com>
wrote:

> +1 Frank's statement is exactly what I would like to see also.
>
> -Steve
>
> On 8/3/2015 12:39 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> For what it's worth, I also do not feel comfortable with completing
>> the survey as it is currently structured as the structure forces me to
>> give answers that don't really represent my views.
>>
>> For what it's worth I am in favor of:
>>   - a modest number of charter members using something like the current
>> process
>>   - open membership
>>   - no manditory membership fees
>>   - make every effort to treat regular members the same as charter
>> members except for the minimum voting stuff required to be legally
>> distinct.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jim Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before
>>> OSGeo existed.  I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated
>>> discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take.
>>> The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very
>>> important to me.
>>>
>>> However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly
>>> the survey has me confused as to how I should respond.
>>>
>>> For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be
>>> improved?  Where are the results of this survey going?  Does this survey
>>> count as an official vote(s)?
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet
>>>> access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as
>>>> Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on
>>>> the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected
>>>> that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board
>>>> mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a
>>>> dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to
>>>> comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our
>>>> Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please
>>>> keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members
>>>> and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills.
>>>>
>>>> Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method
>>>> to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many
>>>> years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new
>>>> proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to
>>>> include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo
>>>> membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really
>>>> flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the "board" and
>>>> "discuss" mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different
>>>> opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their
>>>> ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the
>>>> survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and
>>>> not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question
>>>> based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful
>>>> for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization
>>>> on the right track.
>>>>
>>>> Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!
>>>> Vasile
>>>>
>>>> PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of
>>>> them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.
>>>>
>>>> On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Vassile,
>>>>>
>>>>> This survey appears to be flawed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I applaud your efforts to bring this issue to a head, but I'm not
>>>>> convinced
>>>>> that we'll get valid results from the survey.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In my case:
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that there should be open membership for any interested,
>>>>> perhaps
>>>>> with a membership fee.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also see the value of recognising key contributors voted through some
>>>>> meritocracy process as the current Charter Membership allows, with this
>>>>> group having a voting responsibility. This is in essence not very
>>>>> different
>>>>> from the concept of a 'committers' group within an open source
>>>>> project. I
>>>>> don't really care if the name 'Charter Membership' is changed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> However the survey appears to lead people into a binary situation where
>>>>> they believe in 'open' or 'closed' with 'closed' apparently assigned to
>>>>> those favouring 'Charter Membership'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to vote NO to 'Should OSGeo move from the actual elected
>>>>> Charter
>>>>> member model to an (open) regular membership?'
>>>>>
>>>>> But, YES to 'If you agree with the OSGeo regular membership, do you
>>>>> also
>>>>> agree with a low annual membership fee?'
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I'm precluded from doing so, because I answered NO to Q1.
>>>>>
>>>>> For Question 4, I would like to answer both:
>>>>>
>>>>> - YES for Open, in the context that everyone interested should be
>>>>> able to
>>>>> participate in discussions and the OSGeo Community (perhaps having
>>>>> paid a
>>>>> membership fee); and
>>>>>
>>>>> - YES for 'Closed', in the context of key votes being subject to the
>>>>> equivalent of a 'Committers' list where people have been voted in
>>>>> through
>>>>> some meritocracy process.
>>>>>
>>>>> - However, I can only choose one or the other!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't read the remaining questions at this stage, given the flawed
>>>>> questions at the beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I apologise if you had sent this out for review earlier. I have not
>>>>> been
>>>>> following this debate closely as this type of membership noise pops
>>>>> up on a
>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, when this proceeds to a vote of the OSGeo Charter membership,
>>>>> I
>>>>> need to register a comment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Vasile Crăciunescu <cro at osgeo.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu <cro at osgeo.org>
>>>>>> Date: Thursday, 30 July 2015 23:52
>>>>>> To: Bruce Bannerman <>
>>>>>> Subject: Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership
>>>>>> consultations
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Bruce,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an existing OSGeo Charter Member, you have been invited to
>>>>>> participate
>>>>>> in the 2015 OSGeo membership consultations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To participate, please click on the link below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vasile ()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150803/568591b9/attachment-0002.html>