[Board] Proposal for change of Sponsor levels naming and logos

[Frank Warmerdam]

Robert Bray wrote:
> Also I assume if we went ahead with this change we would need to circle back with each sponsor and explain the rationale for the change. Seems like a lot of effort for such a little change.
> 
> Bob
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Dave McIlhagga (External)
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 7:23 AM
> To: Jeroen Ticheler
> Cc: OSGeo-Board List
> Subject: Re: [Board] Proposal for change of Sponsor levels naming and logos
> 
> One of the problems with this is it clearly positions sponsors as
> "1st, 2nd & 3rd" and I'm not sure that's really the message we want to
> send -- the existing model provides an identification of appreciation
> of the support we receive without it having a strong connotation of
> "Better or Worse".
> 
> I think this is the primary reason why gold, silver, bronze are not
> used as sponsorship levels for non-profit organizations. Most
> foundations / non-profits take a similar model to the one we currently
> have in place.

Folks,

In fact, I would have preferred the "metal level" approach myself, but
I'm concerned that changing things now is a lot of disruption for very
little value.  I would note that the project sponsorships do use metals
though the money levels vary somewhat from the foundation level sponsorship.

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 OSGeo, http://osgeo.org