[OSGeo-Board] Re: [VisCom] Re: OSGF at Where 2.0

[Frank Warmerdam]

Tyler Mitchell wrote:
> Maybe this is a topic/issue that the board could discuss at its next
> meeting.  Could the board clarify when it expects to make decisions vs.
> when committees can or should be.  E.g. when a conference or speaking
> opportunity comes up.

Tyler,

Generally speaking I believe the board should be used to approve
major "policy statements" from committees but that committees should
generally be empowered to do operational stuff without needing
constant board approval.

So, for instance, I think VisCom is well within its mandate to decide
who speaks where for conferences.  Of course in this case the keynote
essentially belongs to Gary/Autodesk and the needs/wants of the
speakers (Gary and potentially me) need to be taken into consideration.

> You could even help clarify what the board expects from members and
> individuals who have opportunities to represent OSGeo.  I use the term
> "expect" very purposefully, because (like it or not) members will _feel_
> that board members have a very important role to play in leading us and
> won't want to step on their toes.

First, as long as they don't claim to be speaking for OSGeo per-se they
can do what ever they want.  For instance, an individual involved in
OSGeo is welcome to speak about it at a conference / user meeting or
whatever as long as they make it clear they are giving their impressions.

If they want to speak for us, then they ought to coordinate with VisCom
and I think VisCom should be providing canned presentation information
as guidance.   I'm hoping some of that material will be run past the
board at some point to be sure we all agree on the message that is
being presented.

I think the Where 2.0 thing was discussed at the board level partly because
it is quite a big "coming out party" for OSGeo in a potentially influential
setting, and because several board members were planning to be there.

> Currently, I just defer to the board or VisCom if I think it's a big
> opportunitiy and should be handled by someone formally associated with the
> foundation.  But, in fact, all our members are formally associated so my
> approach may not be that rational - especially if we want to retain a level
> of grassroots involvement.  If members perceive that the board does all the
> talking, then will start to think they shouldn't even volunteer to.

I definately do not want to limit things to the board, or VisCom members.
For some particular events having someone with apparent stature (ie.
on board, or a project lead) speak can be helpful to communicate
some degree of credibility.

> I guess the ultimate issue is: how to minimise falling back on the
> formal/legal board structure as much as possible.
> 
> Am I off in right field or is this resonating with you?  Something that you
> can discuss?  Perhaps you already have and I missed it.

My personal opinion is that we should stay flexible.  I would rather
have people out talking about OSGeo and perhaps making a few mis-steps
rather than having them feel that they shouldn't.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGF, http://osgeo.org