<p dir="ltr">+1 Frank's statement</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">If there is something that I think could be better in the future it might be:<br>
- More women present in the board although this should go naturally and not forced<br>
- broader representation for Asia and Africa, but again, this should grow organic</p>
<p dir="ltr">But that is just my opinion and I feel in no way privileged to tell others what to do.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Kind regards,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Milo</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 3, 2015 6:44 PM, "Stephen Woodbridge" <<a href="mailto:woodbri@swoodbridge.com">woodbri@swoodbridge.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">+1 Frank's statement is exactly what I would like to see also.<br>
<br>
-Steve<br>
<br>
On 8/3/2015 12:39 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Folks,<br>
<br>
For what it's worth, I also do not feel comfortable with completing<br>
the survey as it is currently structured as the structure forces me to<br>
give answers that don't really represent my views.<br>
<br>
For what it's worth I am in favor of:<br>
- a modest number of charter members using something like the current process<br>
- open membership<br>
- no manditory membership fees<br>
- make every effort to treat regular members the same as charter<br>
members except for the minimum voting stuff required to be legally<br>
distinct.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Frank<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jim Klassen <<a href="mailto:klassen.js@gmail.com" target="_blank">klassen.js@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before<br>
OSGeo existed. I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated<br>
discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take.<br>
The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very<br>
important to me.<br>
<br>
However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly<br>
the survey has me confused as to how I should respond.<br>
<br>
For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be<br>
improved? Where are the results of this survey going? Does this survey<br>
count as an official vote(s)?<br>
<br>
On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,<br>
<br>
Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet<br>
access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as<br>
Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on<br>
the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected<br>
that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board<br>
mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a<br>
dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to<br>
comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our<br>
Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please<br>
keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members<br>
and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills.<br>
<br>
Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method<br>
to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many<br>
years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new<br>
proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to<br>
include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo<br>
membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really<br>
flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the "board" and<br>
"discuss" mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different<br>
opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their<br>
ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the<br>
survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and<br>
not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question<br>
based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful<br>
for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization<br>
on the right track.<br>
<br>
Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!<br>
Vasile<br>
<br>
PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of<br>
them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.<br>
<br>
On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Vassile,<br>
<br>
This survey appears to be flawed.<br>
<br>
I applaud your efforts to bring this issue to a head, but I'm not<br>
convinced<br>
that we'll get valid results from the survey.<br>
<br>
<br>
In my case:<br>
<br>
I believe that there should be open membership for any interested,<br>
perhaps<br>
with a membership fee.<br>
<br>
I also see the value of recognising key contributors voted through some<br>
meritocracy process as the current Charter Membership allows, with this<br>
group having a voting responsibility. This is in essence not very<br>
different<br>
from the concept of a 'committers' group within an open source<br>
project. I<br>
don't really care if the name 'Charter Membership' is changed.<br>
<br>
<br>
However the survey appears to lead people into a binary situation where<br>
they believe in 'open' or 'closed' with 'closed' apparently assigned to<br>
those favouring 'Charter Membership'.<br>
<br>
<br>
For example:<br>
<br>
I'd like to vote NO to 'Should OSGeo move from the actual elected<br>
Charter<br>
member model to an (open) regular membership?'<br>
<br>
But, YES to 'If you agree with the OSGeo regular membership, do you also<br>
agree with a low annual membership fee?'<br>
<br>
However, I'm precluded from doing so, because I answered NO to Q1.<br>
<br>
For Question 4, I would like to answer both:<br>
<br>
- YES for Open, in the context that everyone interested should be<br>
able to<br>
participate in discussions and the OSGeo Community (perhaps having<br>
paid a<br>
membership fee); and<br>
<br>
- YES for 'Closed', in the context of key votes being subject to the<br>
equivalent of a 'Committers' list where people have been voted in<br>
through<br>
some meritocracy process.<br>
<br>
- However, I can only choose one or the other!<br>
<br>
<br>
I haven't read the remaining questions at this stage, given the flawed<br>
questions at the beginning.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I apologise if you had sent this out for review earlier. I have not been<br>
following this debate closely as this type of membership noise pops<br>
up on a<br>
regular basis.<br>
<br>
However, when this proceeds to a vote of the OSGeo Charter membership, I<br>
need to register a comment.<br>
<br>
<br>
For consideration.<br>
<br>
Bruce<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Vasile Crăciunescu <<a href="mailto:cro@osgeo.org" target="_blank">cro@osgeo.org</a>><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu <<a href="mailto:cro@osgeo.org" target="_blank">cro@osgeo.org</a>><br>
Date: Thursday, 30 July 2015 23:52<br>
To: Bruce Bannerman <><br>
Subject: Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership<br>
consultations<br>
<br>
Dear Bruce,<br>
<br>
As an existing OSGeo Charter Member, you have been invited to<br>
participate<br>
in the 2015 OSGeo membership consultations.<br>
<br>
To participate, please click on the link below.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Vasile ()<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote></div>