<div dir="ltr">Dirk, <div><br></div><div>I feel your e-mail nails it on the spot. </div><div><br></div><div>Well spoken, I totally agree.</div><div><br></div><div>Milo</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2014-07-01 18:46 GMT+02:00 Dirk Frigne <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dirk.frigne@geosparc.com" target="_blank">dirk.frigne@geosparc.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Although I am not so active on the mailing list, I am an OSGeo's<br>
advocate, and I take the opportunity to promote OSGeo wherever I can.<br>
<br>
I became an OSGeo member in 2007 because I was proud on what the<br>
organisation did and I wanted to support it, with the scarce resources I<br>
own.<br>
<br>
One of the things I appreciate enormously is<br>
<br>
- The organisation is open (as in open source)<br>
- Becoming a member of the organisation is totally free (*yes* like in<br>
free beer!)<br>
- the organisation has a perfect DNA:<br>
- members can<br>
- act as *A* user<br>
- act as *T*echnical skilled person (sofware developers,<br>
industry, documentation)<br>
- work at *G*overmental body<br>
- member of the s*C*ientific world (academic world)<br>
<br>
In the world of today *free* as in gratis, *free* as in *free* *beer*,<br>
doing something for<br>
somebody else is very rare (scarce) that it becomes very valuable.<br>
Being a part of a community like OSGeo not only is *fun* but also gives<br>
you a *good* feeling, and it is very motivating to work in a company or<br>
organisation that supports OSGeo.<br>
<br>
I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having<br>
that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to<br>
the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo<br>
community didn't result in any bad experience until now)<br>
<br>
Of course, an organisation needs money, To support some stuff (.svn or<br>
whathever goal is worth supporting). But I think we should keep the<br>
membership *free* (and not as in *free* beer!), because it is in my eyes<br>
a very essential part of OSGeo:<br>
<br>
"Core principles are:<br>
<br>
OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation.<br>
OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives<br>
which support themselves. " [1]<br>
<br>
As in DNA, different chains have different roles.<br>
<br>
*G*overnments are happy to have such a movement as the Free and open<br>
source software [2] movement, because they can avoid vendor lock-in,<br>
gain control over their projects (read: become free again), and save a<br>
lot of money. They should take this advantage seriously and sponsor open<br>
source activities.<br>
<br>
the s*C*ientific world is happy to use open source solutions, because<br>
they can study the tools themselves and focus on research, not being<br>
bothered of the licenses they are using.<br>
They also should take this advantage seriously and donate scientific<br>
relevant material they don't want to exploit immediately to the community.<br>
<br>
*A*ny user should be free (*not* as in free beer) to use and experiment<br>
with the results of what the community is producing. The community<br>
should welcome *A*ny user and help him to find his way, so he can take<br>
his responsibility and earn respect for what he is doing.<br>
<br>
And last but not least: the *T*echnically skilled persons are the heart<br>
of the community. Being able to create great teamwork and donate back to<br>
the community. Also they should take their responsibility and earn the<br>
respect they deserve.<br>
<br>
But where is the money we need to operate the organisation?<br>
<br>
Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who<br>
should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should<br>
remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the<br>
intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back.<br>
<br>
The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional<br>
involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C).<br>
So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for<br>
the support, but these professional actors.<br>
And they (the professional actors) should become a member (in their role<br>
of incorporation) to support it. But sponsored membership should not<br>
give rights to vote, or whatsoever. The only thing you gain is that you,<br>
as a professional incorporation, are happy with an organisation as<br>
OSGeo, fighting for your rights to be able to use *free* software. And<br>
the sponsors should trust and believe that a low capital, volunteer<br>
focused organisation will do that for them, as they do it already today.<br>
<br>
The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the<br>
common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today.<br>
<br>
my 2c<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities" target="_blank">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities</a><br>
[2] <a href="http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software" target="_blank">http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software</a><br>
<br>
Dirk<br>
On 24-06-14 15:12, Even Rouault wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> Interesting topic that raises quite a few questions.<br>
><br>
> I think that all people who have commented in that thread have not necessarily<br>
> agreed if membership fees would be something in addition to the nomination and<br>
> election processs, or if it would replace it.<br>
><br>
> If we switch to a paid membership, one would likely have to identify the<br>
> benefits brought by being a member. Voting rights for the board would probably<br>
> not a big enough benefit. In the AAG example quoted by Paul, there are several<br>
> benefits associated: access to journals, reduced prices to<br>
> publications/meetings, etc... That would mean that there is a commitment of<br>
> OSGeo to provide the advertized benefits, and thus the question on how to<br>
> guarantee this commitment would arise : volunteers effort, or paid<br>
> staff/contractors ?<br>
> Interestingly one of the benefit of AAG membership is access to "AAG specialty<br>
> groups" whose equivalent in OSGeo would probably be our mailing lists. So would<br>
> we want to restrict access to those to non members ? Mateusz also mentionned<br>
> that bills have to be paid to maintain some OSGeo servers, like svn. Would we<br>
> want to restrict access to those servers only to the folks who have paid the<br>
> membership fee ? Probably not.<br>
><br>
> We have only mentionned individual members, but would we want to extend to<br>
> corportate members as well ?<br>
><br>
> From my perspective, OSGeo Charter membership is a recognition for the<br>
> accomplishments of an individual to support OSGeo values and missions, and thus<br>
> gets a right to define its steering through board election. Perhaps we at a<br>
> community sometimes fail to welcome people who would deserve it, because they<br>
> are a bit outside of our usual networks to be nominated (or because people are<br>
> not confortable enough to do public nominations, perhaps for language or<br>
> cultural reasons), or because we reach the yearly quota for new members. That's<br>
> certainly a pitty if folks feel excluded whereas I think we generally try to be<br>
> rather inclusive.<br>
><br>
> One thing to keep in mind is that if we translate into money the value of the<br>
> accomplishments of OSGeo Charter members, I'm pretty sure that in 99.99% of the<br>
> cases that translates to much more than USD 70. You can probably add one or two<br>
> zeros to that figure. So asking them for a fee, in addition to their other forms<br>
> of contribution, would seem a bit awkward, although I can understand that<br>
> contribution in term of money rather than time is sometimes more useful. So I<br>
> wouldn't object to paying a membership fee.<br>
><br>
> But IMHO the main question is : do we need membership fees to sustain OSGeo ?<br>
> Aren't surplus funds generated by FOSS4G sufficient for that (although I can<br>
> understand that Howard's fear that FOSS4G organization by volunteers might not<br>
> be a sustainable model) ? Or perhaps we would need more funds to be able to do<br>
> more things ?<br>
><br>
> OSGeo is perhaps rather different from other organizations in the geomatics<br>
> field in the way it manages its membership, but is it more a strength or a<br>
> weakness ?<br>
><br>
> Even<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br>
--<br>
Yours sincerely,<br>
<br>
<br>
ir. Dirk Frigne<br>
CEO<br>
<br>
Geosparc n.v.<br>
Brugsesteenweg 587<br>
B-9030 Ghent<br>
Tel: <a href="tel:%2B32%209%20236%2060%2018" value="+3292366018">+32 9 236 60 18</a><br>
GSM: <a href="tel:%2B32%20495%20508%20799" value="+32495508799">+32 495 508 799</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.geomajas.org" target="_blank">http://www.geomajas.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.geosparc.com" target="_blank">http://www.geosparc.com</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>