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

Mon Aug 3 13:04:42 PDT 2015

I have filled the survey matching my answers ad close to my views as
possible but I also give +1 to agree with Frank's comments
3 sie 2015 18:39 "Frank Warmerdam" <warmerdam at pobox.com> napisał(a):

> 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
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
> warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150803/29e202ab/attachment-0002.html>