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

[Jo Walsh]

dear Tyler, your questions presuppose an essay-length answer. Who has
time to read whole essays in this fast-paced information age? ;)

On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:40:45AM -0700, 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.  

> 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.

This takes me back to an IRC discussion from a couple of weeks ago,
when Michael Gerlek asked for clarification on whether it would be 
appropriate for him to offer an OSGeo presentation at GeoWeb:
http://logs.qgis.org/osgeo/%23osgeo.2006-04-18.log # 8:52

mpg had earlier raised on the VisCom list, that a speaker slot was 
open for an OSGeo promotional talk[0]. 

Deference: "Do we have a board-level rep attending who could present?". 
Response: "Probably not; if you want to go for it, here are some helpful
presentation materials". 

The question dropped off the stack for a week, until it became
time-critical. It looked like no-one on VisCom felt they were either:

- *entitled* to say, "go ahead, speak for OSGeo"
- *responsible* for saying, "go ahead, speak for OSGeo"

(You are entitled to what you are given; you are responsible for
something that you take on yourself. Please not how hard I am trying
not to say "empowered").  

mpg's original question wasn't answered directly because it was
phrased indirectly: the question was "is a board-level member planning 
to attend?" (and therefore has more entitlement to speak for OSGeo) 
rather than a more answerable "I'd like to do this, if no-one else
would rather; who should I talk to about it?"

The deference/indirectness in the question reflects to me what Tyler 
identifies as the "unspoken assumptions members have about the role 
the board sees itself filling". (mpg, please forgive me if I am
over-analysing / misrepresenting you here ;/ I'm belabouring this
incident because I found it interesting, and because it indicates this
hasn't just been a Where 2.0/ "launch" specific issue).

In the followup IRC discussion a week later, mpg made the key
statement: [[ I am not sure if I can "speak on behalf of OSGeo" ]]

And a response of Chris's from that brief discussion:
[[ I can't see anyone objecting, and indeed would like a general
policy that any member can speak on behalf of OSgeo at conference type
activities. ]]

I'd say there are at least two halves to this question:

- To what extent does any participant feel entitled to "speak for OSGeo"
- To what extent may doing so "tread on the toes" of members who are
  formally/legally entitled to do so (Board members, Foundation officers).

The first half can be resolved by what Frank suggested; [[ If (a member)
wants to speak for us, then they ought to coordinate with VisCom and I think 
VisCom should be providing canned presentation information as guidance. ]]
VisCom gets entitled to support members in giving OSGeo themed
presentiations; how decisions are made is something for VisCom
internally to figure out for itself). mpg is doing good work already in
putting together a presentation library for this sort of thing: 
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Library

There's still a bottleneck (people have to 'pass a bar' to become
entitled to speak for OSGeo) but that doesn't depend on Board
involvement or a formal vote, which is really likely to put people off.

The second half of the question, I find a lot harder to pick apart -
it seems a lot broader/deeper than the conference presentation issue.

> 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 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.

If you are off in right field, then I am there with you. But I don't
know how this can be addressed head-on, other than on a reactive, 
per-issue basis like is happening now. Your concern is that this is
not going to reassure people that they can autonomously make effort to
promote the Foundation and its goals? 


all the best,

jo

[0] https://visibilitycommittee.osgeo.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=94