<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Nov 11, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 11-11-10 03:17 PM, Tyler Mitchell wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Some see this effort as being exclusively focused on DOD or US-specific<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">interests. I don't think that's Mark's intent though. It's just worth<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">confirming on this list. I think the wiki page is general enough already in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this respect.<br></blockquote><br>Tyler,<br><br>I can actually imagine having a Washington area OSGeo chapter with<br>some focus on US federal issues (military, intelligence and also<br>civilian agencies like NASA, USGS, NOAA, ...) *and* some sort of<br>north american level organization that helps stitch together broader<br>efforts.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">There is no conflict with a Washington area OSGeo chapter (There is the start of one listed in the LC list). The NA Regional chapter would be primarily focused on organizing and running an annual regional conference. If no other local chapter was available, it could act as an interface for other related conferences. All chapters operate independently, hopefully with a lot of collaboration. There should be no implied hierarchy or management - it all depends on volunteers and contributors.</div><br style="font-size: 14px; "><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite">Similar to Mark's close connection with defence, I'm hoping we can also make<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">some inroads with the various other industry associations and with academia<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">- there is certainly a regional need here. I've added GITA to the list of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">relevant orgs to help show that - though the list could be 10 times as long<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">if add in the CA/US/MX ASPRS chapters, cartographic associations, federal<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">SDI initiatives, open gov, etc.<br></blockquote><br>Note that Mark was, I believe, listing organizations with a focus<br>on open source rather than just organizations with a focus on<br>geospatial.<br></div></blockquote><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">No reason it couldn't be both if the association helps us to market and push forward our agenda.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite">A cross-industry chapter, with a focus on industry event outreach could be<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">quite powerful if we have good representation in the chapter for those<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">various industries.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">= Organization =<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Wiki stated the intent was to organize as a 501c3, I don't think it's a bad<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">idea, but suspect it's not necessary to commit to it at this time. It may<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">just cause more concern than benefit. Some other existing related orgs have<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">501c3 status and could potentially take us under their wing to simplify the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">administrative side for us. I'm thinking specifically of GITA or USGIF.<br></blockquote><br>I had to read the above over several times to confirm that the most<br>obvious candidate was omitted - OSGeo. I am very dubious about any<br>American local chapter seeking 501(c)3 status or even incorporating<br>due to the administrative overhead involved. I don't see any reason<br>that OSGeo central could not hold money for a north american conference<br>or other chapter initiatives with the understanding we have to keep<br>the number of transactions managable.<br><br>I think it is quite plausible we could, for instance, open a separate<br>bank account that is technically an OSGeo account but with someone<br>local to an event effort having signing authority and OSGeo's Treasurer<br>just providing some oversight.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><br><div><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">This is probably pre-mature and there is no reason to decide at this point. Frank is correct that we could default to using the current OSGeo structure. I've started updating the wiki to reflect the options:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 19px; "><h3 style="color: black; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; font-weight: bold; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.3em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom-width: initial; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-color: initial; font-size: 14px; "><span class="mw-headline" id="Financial">Financial</span></h3><div style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 15px; ">Initially, we have no finances, so we operate as a club. Maybe we never get out of that mode.</div><div style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 15px; ">As we gain funding or have to commit financial resources, we have several possible paths we could take:</div><ol style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-top: 0.3em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 3.2em; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; list-style-image: none; font-size: 15px; "><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; ">Leverage the existing OSGeo non profit status</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; ">Leverage existing financial structures from other collaborating organizations</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; ">Establish ourselves as a not for profit financial entity</li></ol><div style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 15px; ">Each of these have pros and cons. There is no requirement to merge our finances with the OSGeo foundation.</div></span><div><br></div></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">Recent discussions at the board level were pulling back from a concerted effort on sponsorship, building core staff, organizing and running annual NA conferences, etc. It was suggested that this should be pushed down to regional chapters. The NA chapter would raise its own funding, plan and run its own conference, and potentially grow its own finances, resources, and staff. We would work closely with the board on international events, overall policy, and coordination of available resources. </div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">For example, we are just asking to be established as an official chapter - we are not asking for permission to run a regional conference, nor are we asking for any financing or resources from OSGeo proper. Chapters, official or not, can organize their own events.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">For international conferences that occur within the region, I would expect those to be led from the board level with the region providing support (and local chapters where available). If the board decides to back code sprints or provide resources for a regional event - then they would have oversight and control over those events and the chapters would help support.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite">= Meeting and Events =<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I'm sure we can all think of other events (past or future) that may be of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">interest to the group and its objectives. I didn't add any other specific<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">events, but again think we can build on the strengths of the group. For<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">example, if we don't have any academic interest, there's no sense adding AAG<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to the list.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">So what areas are you interested and what's the top event or two for that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">area?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">= OSGeo Connection =<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Since much of this topic was discussed on some threads with the OSGeo Board<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">today, I think it's easy to confuse what the group is about. I don't see it<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">as being tied to any particular objective of the board, other than generally<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to build regional awareness and outreach.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">There was some talk amongst the board about running a north american event,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">but it didn't gain traction. So, really, aside from a general tie-in to the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">OSGeo mission I think it should be clarified that this chapter isn't looking<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for any funding or official support from OSGeo to run events on its behalf,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">etc. At the most the chapter would look to be accepted as an official<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">chapter. Is that what you are thinking too Mark, and others? It will help<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">clear some of the smoke that was in the air during the board meeting :)<br></blockquote><br>I'm not sure I noticed any smoke.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">I probably should have been clearer on what the motion was about. I believe we have complied with the criteria for establishing a local chapter. Following the instructions for establishing a chapter, we have filled out the wiki, got a mailing list going, established initial membership, and filled out a formal request to the board. Arguably, the chapter is already active with all of the discussion on "Just what is North America".</div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">The motion to the board is to make the NA Regional Chapter an official OSGeo chapter… Yes, or no…. just following the written board rules here...</div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">Either way, we can proceed (if we wish) to organize conferences, raise funding, organize, promote, develop, etc if we have contributors willing to put in the effort.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">I'm anxious to move our success forward into new areas - both at the board and chapter level.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>I see the North American event effort as conceptually similar to many<br>other local chapters holding events. They are driven by local chapter<br>volunteers with local resources and only loosely connected to "OSGeo<br>Global". On that basis there is no reason it can't get going as soon<br>as there are interested volunteers willing to push it.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">Agree, but think this discussion is helpful in thinking through the chapter and conference plans.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Now, as it happens, if the focus of a first event is in the<br>Washington area and aiming at the federal opportunity that Mark<br>has explained elsewhere then I think it is also a strategic<br>issue for OSGeo as a whole, and it would be reasonable that<br>additional resources could be supplied - primarily in the form<br>of seed money since we don't have staff resources we can supply<br>now.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">Currently, I'm not suggesting we seek seed money from the board. My recommendation is that we walk before we run. </div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">Replicate the OSGeo conference that we had last year. The easiest (and minimum risk) path would be to have another conference in Denver, work with GITA for the organization of it, try to take advantage of what we learned and see if we can attract some of the same volunteers. This would almost guarantee that the chapter turns a profit. Next year we shoot for a new location in the region.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">There are already a number of conferences in the DC area that we should be able to participate in. We already have fairly good connections into Wherecon (USGIF) and MIL-OSS. It is too expensive and too risky to try and finance (Chapter or OSGeo Intl) our own conference in the DC area. We simply work with already planned activities this year.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">Local chapters manage their own affairs, can host their own events, and keep the profits to fund future activities.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">If OSGeo International invests or provides significant resources they should share in any profits.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">If OSGeo International plans and manages the events they get the profits.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">I don't imagine we will get any of the profits from attaching ourselves to the scheduled DC conferences, but we should be able to get the exposure for the OSGeo projects.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"><br></span>If our focus is an initial event I'd even suggest we not get hung up<br>on forming an official north american chapter, and instead treat this<br>list as a coordination effort in our region and form a local organizing<br>committee for an initial north american OSGeo/FOSS4G event which I hope<br>will be focused on the US federal opportunity.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Best regards,<br>-- <br>---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------<br>I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, <a href="mailto:warmerdam@pobox.com">warmerdam@pobox.com</a><br>light and sound - activate the windows | <a href="http://pobox.com/warmerda">http://pobox.com/warmerda</a><br>and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Software Developer<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Northamerica mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Northamerica@lists.osgeo.org">Northamerica@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/northamerica<br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>