OSGeo-Board Motion: "Trustees and Members"

[Markus Neteler]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:28:52PM -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Rich Steele wrote:
> >I don't have a vote, but I would recommend against the use of the word 
> >"Trustee" to signify those individuals who elect the board.   "Trustee" 
> >is a legal term that implies a fiduciary duty to the organization, and 
> >in this sense is much more akin to the board itself rather than the 
> >persons who elect the board (i.e., "members" or, in the for profit 
> >context, "stockholders").  A "trustee" is commonly defined by law a 
> >person who holds title to assets "in trust" for the benefit of another 
> >(i.e., the "beneficiary").  In the nonprofit world, this concept has 
> >been extended to refer to the board of directors of the nonprofit -- the 
> >idea being that they are in essence managing the assets of the 
> >corporation for the public good.  This is why you sometimes see 
> >non-profit boards called a "Board of Trustees".
> >
> >But to call a member a "trustee" is very confusing and has a distinctly 
> >different legal connotation, one that I as a "trustee" wouldn't be 
> >comfortable with.  "Member" also is a well understood legal term of 
> >art.  See, for example, the Delaware Code, which defines a Member as "a 
> >person who, under the rules or practices of a nonprofit association, may 
> >participate in the selection of persons authorized to manage the affairs 
> >of the nonprofit association or in the development of policy of the 
> >nonprofit association."  Note that it says these are persons who 
> >participate in the *selection* of persons authorized to manage the 
> >nonprofit; it does not say that members *are* the persons authorized to 
> >manage the nonprofit.
> >
> >I'm not sure what the purpose is of the motion on the floor.  If it is 
> >to level the playing field and be less exclusionary, I don't see how 
> >this fits the bill.  You still have primary and secondary classes of 
> >individuals, and calling them something different does not change this 
> >fact.  If the problem is instead around the word "member", and wanting 
> >everybody to be one (ie, we are not a "members only" society), then I 
> >don't understand why "member" and "associate member" don't work.  Or you 
> >could have everyone be "members", and then the 45 are "voting members".  
> >Any of these or other plays on the word "member" would work, but I think 
> >the "trustee" idea gives the wrong impression.
> 
> Rich,
> 
> Point taken, I withdraw the motion.
> 
> The intent is to try and avoid to much stigma for folks who aren't "voting
> members".  But ultimately, it is just window dressing.   OK, we stick with
> members and some to be defined term like associate member, or friend of the
> foundation.

While I still have 50 OSGF messages to read (maybe there are more comments
on this), I find it easier to distinguish "member" and "friend ..."
than "member" and "associate member".

See it with eyes of a non native english speaker - probably the majority
of the people interested in the foundation is in that group. Make it clear
from the beginning, make it easy to understand... Since I don't easily
understand what "associate" really means, I prefer the "friends" notion.

Markus