<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Ah, I replied to this email (from my osgeo-board inbox) before
reading the rest of my emails from my osgeo-discuss inbox. I see
there has been a lot of discussion about this proposal in the last
12 hrs.<br>
<br>
I'm still of the opinion that charter membership is most valuable
when provided to recognised volunteers.<br>
This aligns with our current OSGeo Board Priorities:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities</a><br>
<br>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<b><i>OSGeo as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation</i></b><i><br>
</i><i>Should OSGeo act as a high capital or low capital
organisation? I.e., should OSGeo dedicate energy to collecting
sponsorship and then passing out these funds to worthy OSGeo
causes.</i><i><br>
</i><i>While initially it seems attractive to have OSGeo woo
sponsors, because we would all love to have more money to throw at
worthy OSGeo goals, the reality is that chasing money is hard
work. And someone who can chase OSGeo sponsorship is likely
conflicted with chasing sponsorship for their particular
workplace. So in practice, to be effective in chasing sponsorship,
OSGeo will probably need to hire someone specifically for the
role. OSGeo would then need to raise at least enough to cover
wages, and then quite a bit more if the sponsorship path is to
create extra value.</i><i><br>
</i><i>This high capital path is how the Apache foundation is set
up, and how LocationTech propose to organise themselves. It is the
path that OSGeo started following when founded under the umbrella
of Autodesk.</i><i><br>
</i><i>However, as OSGeo has grown, OSGeo has slowly evolved toward
a low capital volunteer focused organisation. Our overheads are
very low, which means we waste very little of our volunteer labour
and capital on the time consuming task of chasing and managing
money. Consequently, any money we do receive (from conference
windfalls or sponsorship) goes a long way - as it doesn't get
eaten up by high overheads. This low capital path is something
that is working very well for us, and the path we should continue
to follow.</i><br>
<br>
I'm open to revisiting this, but switching from a charter based on
recognised volunteers to paid membership is a major change from
OSGeo's constitution, and should not be made without substantial
consultation with the community.<br>
<br>
(I'd agree with Dimitris that this would be a vote which should be
put to the whole of the OSGeo Charter membership).<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/06/2014 8:17 am, Cameron Shorter
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53A8A77B.4050807@gmail.com" type="cite">Thanks
for your feedback Dimitris,
<br>
You have made some valuable comments.
<br>
I'm also surprised that there has only been a few comments on this
thread, although I'm hopeful that this equates to a general
feeling that the proposal as crafted is reasonably close to group
opinion.
<br>
<br>
The proposal as it stands aims to address some of the concerns
raised from previous years, and leaves the opportunity for others
to improve it still in future years. (In particular, after testing
with this upcoming vote, I see the potential to make greater use
of charter member voting using tools such as limesurvey).
<br>
<br>
On 24/06/2014 4:01 am, Dimitris Kotzinos wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear Cameron,
<br>
<br>
thanks for the reply and the comments to my previous e-mail. It
also gave me a chance to revisit the rules around the charter
members.
<br>
I was expecting this issue to be further discussed within the
community and i am a bit disappointed with the evolution of the
discussion, given the fact that the board will make a decision
shortly.
<br>
I am happy that you agree with me in most of the cases; I should
also point out that my comments aim at improving the voting
process this year (why wait for the next) unless this year's
decision does not accept any alterations.
<br>
A few more comments:
<br>
-- Voting of charter members: I agree that in the rules is
stated that the Charter Members are voting for new Charter
Members and the board. Then maybe we should consider the members
to vote (I think that this can be considered based on the
bylaws)?
<br>
If we agree with the need to validate this kind of decisions
from a larger body, then a solution can be found.
<br>
-- For the proposed changes and in the request for data to
validate them; I cannot understand the comment that anyone who
disagrees should bring up data that validate the current status.
Usually the one who proposes changes should bring along some
data to prove that the changes are needed and are in the proper
direction. But for me there is no need since the last two years,
whoever applied for Charter Member status was accepted. So I
cannot see who was rejected.
<br>
So I still do not see where the need for such changes comes from
and what exactly we expect to improve with this.
<br>
<br>
I think that the proposed process creates a small bias and
mainly gives the message that the Charter Members do not vote
wisely enough to let the breadth and depth of the Foundation
Membership to be represented. And I think that this is simply
not true. I am also afraid when a future board might decide to
have the 3/4 of members ex officio and so on ... But this can be
just me.
<br>
So no need to recycle the discussion, thanks again for the
response - I am sure that the board will consider the fact that
whatever objections come in good faith and I do trust that the
board will take a wise decision.
<br>
<br>
Best regards,
<br>
<br>
Dimitris
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Discuss mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F +61 2 9009 5099</pre>
</body>
</html>