[Board] On constitutional re-engineering

[Dave McIlhagga]

Hi Jo,

Perhaps it is useful to recall why the membership model for OSGeo was  
created in the form it has taken. It was designed from the Apache  
model for meritocracy whereby recognition is given to individuals who  
have demonstrated a high level of contribution to the foundation and  
it's projects. In this way it ensures that the future of the  
organization is shaped by those who have a proven record of the  
greatest commitment to the Foundation.

The risk of eliminating this process is that it opens the door to  
having the organization pushed in directions that are not consistent  
with the wishes of the folks who actually have skin in the game --  
something that could be quite destructive to the successes that have  
come to date.

I think it's critical to recall that open source technology success is  
an outcome of contributions of effort - the process we have in place  
currently is designed to encourage contributions and ensure the  
overall organization is driven not by a simple vote of the masses --  
but by those who are giving the most as individuals to the success of  
OSGeo.

Dave

www.mapsherpa.com
www.dmsolutions.ca

On 17-Jun-09, at 6:46 AM, Jo Walsh wrote:

> dear all,
>
> At the Open Knowledge Foundation we recently
> doubled the size of the board, and are undergoing
> some constitutional re-engineering, thinking about
> membership models, election v selection and so on.
>
> This had me digging through the archives for peoples'
> thoughts while setting up OSGeo[0], and it now has me
> thinking about the membership and election model here.
>
> Our model is overcomplex and is a PITA to administer
> with the two rounds of elections each year, fatigue, etc.
> Membership has an odd exclusiveness, with a social network
> electing a few more to itself each year.
>
> A suggestion of Martin Keegan's is that, instead of
> Board members having fixed terms after which
> they need to be re-elected (or re-selected), each year
> every Board member must send a ping saying
> "Yes, i am up for renewing my commitment for another year".
>
> I know i have hung on during long periods when i have been
> basically unavailable, because i didn't want to resign
> and knew i would have more time and energy for OSGeo
> in the future. This way would present an option to
> step down gracefully and to easily re-present oneself
> to the pool of candidates if things cleared up.
>
> As far as membership is concerned, I think that
> everyone who wants to be an OSGeo member, should be.
> GNOME has a system whereby you ask for membership
> pointing to SVN commits to one of their projects, then
> there is a membership committee, which hopefully
> just rubberstamps and enters you into a file.
>
> I see quite a few people with "OSGeo Charter Member"
> in their sigs and why not have as many people as possible
> doing this?
>
> If we went to a model like this then the burden of administering
> the Board elections each year would be lesser, the timing
> would be more consistent. I don't think it would be any
> less fair. Members could also be invited to re-state their
> commitment every year or two.
>
> I wonder what others think and guess this should go
> to the discuss list if it is worth while to discuss.
>
> cheers,
>
>
> jo
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board