[Board] Re: [Marketing] Processing "OSGeo Teach-in" request

[Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)]

On 3-Jun-08, at 2:25 PM, jo at frot.org wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 02:03:19PM -0700, Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)  
> wrote:
>>> This idea of selling the "OSGeo Teach-In" as a "brand" to sponsors
>>>  keeps the decision clean. There's already a range of sponsorship
>>>  benefits listed at http://www.osgeo.org/sponsorship ... a  
>>> Supporting
>
>> I don't see how becoming a sponsor can help in these cases.  It's
>> come up a couple times but I think there's a misunderstanding of
>> sponsor benefits here.  The rights of sponsors don't really include
>> using the OSGeo brand as part of their own events.  It merely lets
>> them identify themselves as sponsors.  Are you thinking of specific
>> wording on that page that suggests more?  I'm thinking of the "Right
>> to use OSGeo Sponsor logo and promote named sponsorship level"
>
> I'm reading back to Arnulf's original suggestion [[ (...thinking
> out loud): The logo "OSGeo Teach-in" could be something you get when
> you are a sponsor. Then you can do this kind of event.]]
>
> I've assumed this means *extending* the Supporting Sponsor benefits to
> include the right to host an annual "OSGeo Teach-in" event.
> ..
> I thought this made sense, but perhaps i just wasn't clear. :/

Ah, okay, I wasn't thinking of the idea of extending benefits - I see  
the meaning now.

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of "commercial" and  
what it means.  I think I need to re-read some of the discussion  
because I'm not seeing the clear benefit for extending the  
sponsorship model.

Is the idea to allow sponsors to do the events on their own and brand  
them as OSGeo even though there is no involvement or formal  
connection back to OSGeo - just a certain level of paid sponsorship?   
Does it mean anyone can become a sponsor and hold an event using  
OSGeo branding?

Or perhaps the idea is to treat this more like a licensing fee -  
where an organisation could pay a fixed or relative rate to be able  
to use the brand under certain terms.  With that I don't think we  
could get away from having to vet the organisation through a  
process.  I'd favour that before I would extend the existing  
sponsorship programme (which requires no vetting at the moment).  I'm  
not in favour of giving special rights to sponsors with minimal ties,  
if any, simply because they pay.  I'd rather have the ability to  
allow trusted users to move ahead under the brand, with certain  
approved terms.  Certainly "trusted" is subjective, but the policy  
would have to help with that part.

Maybe the line between licensing and sponsorship isn't that broad,  
but I think the sponsorship programme should be left out of the  
equation.  I also can't see such a flood of requests as to make any  
process too onerous.

Tyler