<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Christopher Schmidt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crschmidt@metacarta.com">crschmidt@metacarta.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Tim Schaub wrote:<br>
> Hey-<br>
><br>
> So, motivated by the OSGeo Project Sponsorship program, Chris did a<br>
> great job of putting together a document that describes the potential<br>
> sponsorship opportunities with OpenLayers.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://svn.openlayers.org/project/sponsorship/sponsoring" target="_blank">http://svn.openlayers.org/project/sponsorship/sponsoring</a><br>
><br>
> This document describes a few things:<br>
> 1) our intent to seek sponsorship via the OSGeo Project Sponsorship program;<br>
> 2) high level goals for use of sponsorship funds; and<br>
> 3) details on uses, benefits, and the process.<br>
><br>
> John has raised questions about having the OSGeo manage our sponsorship<br>
> program versus having some other entity manage the program. I think we<br>
> have agreed to treat this question separately - to entertain suggestions<br>
> on alternative methods of managing the sponsorship program after we<br>
> agree on the core goals.<br>
<br>
</div>If we're going to do this, I think we need to change the document. I<br>
can't see any way that we can achieve the goals described in the<br>
document in a way that isn't through the OSGeo project sponsorship<br>
program. For example, if we decide to pursue a financial path that<br>
requires direct payment from sponsors to an organization receiving<br>
money, then the idea of using these funds for paying for items like code<br>
sprints becomes less tenable, etc.<br>
<br>
If we're seriously considering pursuing funding thrugh something other<br>
than OSGeo, I don't see a reason that we need to agree n the document as<br>
written, or a way in which the 'core goals' we're talking about can<br>
remain relevant in the face of the various possibilities that we might<br>
pursue for funding sources.</blockquote><div><br>Can you explain why direct payment from sponsors would preclude paying<br>for code sprints?<br><br>I don't see why anything would change at all whether it be via osgeo or <br>
any other method. <br><br>Erik<br><br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> I would like to call a vote specifically on the document linked above.<br>
> The issue we're voting on looks something like this:<br>
><br>
> If we agree to pursue sponsorship for OpenLayers via the OSGeo Project<br>
> Sponsorship program, the PSC believes that the sponsorship document<br>
> referenced [1] adequately describes the goals, intended uses, and<br>
> potential benefits of project sponsorship.<br>
<br>
</div>In which case, it seems to me we should be voting on the conditinal<br>
first, no? If we're not going t pursue funding through OSGeo then this<br>
vote is completely irrelevant? Why are we voting on something which<br>
could turn out to be irrelevant?<br>
<br>
I'll politely abstain from voting on this proposal, since I can't see<br>
how it's relevant without first resolving the conditional embedded<br>
within it. Once we do that, I'll gladly reconsider the<br>
document/principles in question.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
Christopher Schmidt<br>
MetaCarta<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
Dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a><br>
<a href="http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev" target="_blank">http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>