[Board] On constitutional re-engineering

[Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)]

>> 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.
>
> Well, the GNOME model (which I am admiring) does preserve the
> meritocracy aspect in a clear way - when applying for membership
> you point to SVN commits you've made (or open documentation
> you've published, or events you've organised, for non-coders who are
> actively involved).
>
> The ASF bylaws cover "Emeritus membership" in some detail,
> http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#4.1
> We have all this stuff in our bylaws (it looks close to a copy-paste)
> but we've never used it.
> We've never really used the second-class "Associate Membership" either.
> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
>
> Neither our bylaws or ASF's place an upper limit on membership.
> An opening up of the membership would mean revision of
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Membership_Process
> but wouldn't impact the bylaws, or depart OSGeo from the spirit of ASF.
>
> I'm recalling the situation last year where we set the new member limit
> at Board level, then it turned out that only three more people than the
> limit were recommended as members, that year. I don't think we would
> get an unrepresentative flood of new people - especially if it were
> combined
> with an effective way to 'emeritise' old members who have drifted away.
>
> Please bear in mind that my aim in this is to find ways to make
> the process simpler, not to delve into process-wank complexity.
> Easier to administer and easier to hop in and out of active involvement.
> I think that opening up membership would encourage more people
> to get involved and contribute (to the goals of the foundation, beyond
> the goals of the projects).
>
> Arnulf, did we find a volunteer from the discuss list to run this
> year's election
> as mooted at the last Board meeting?
>
> cheers,
>
>
> jo

Jo,
thanks for bringing this up and I like the suggested ideas a lot. First to
your question: No, we have not yet heard from anybody wanting to be
Ceremonial Retarding Officer of Elections and as you say we would probably
have a hard time even explaining the involved processes to her.

Right now I am busy hopping from GSDI (cool event, thanks to Jeroen lots
of Open Source!) to the Greek Local Chapter in Athens who (which?) invited
me to give a talk and workshop and then on to Bolsena for the hack sprint.
But when Jeroen, Tyler and I meet next week we will further discuss this
in more depth and hack the Wiki. In preparation for this we would very
much appreciate if All could reply to the suggested idea. "All" in this
context are the board members (compulsory) and whoever else lurks on this
list and is savvy with meta community re-engineering or just interested in
giving input. Thanks to Dave for doing just that.

We can schedule our chats later in the evening so that folks from other
time zones can join via IRC or shake their disembodied heads in protest
when we mess it up too bad.

Best regards,

-- 
Arnulf Christl
Bonn, Germany