[Board] Re: F2F meeting

[Howard Butler]

On Nov 6, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Tyler Mitchell wrote:
>
>
> > Otherwise we can make it a
> > requirement that
> > future Directors must be capable and willing to afford a meeting
> > on their
> > own expense.
>
> At least we aren't like another non-profit board I'm on, where us  
> directors are being asked to fund activities with a set annual  
> contribution - either directly with their own cash or in-kind by  
> raising sponsorships.  The purpose is for the gov't tax folks to see  
> the directors are committed to success of the organisation.

It would indeed be simpler to just require board members buy their  
seat with a gold membership ;)

> * Supporting and promoting a $20-50 paid membership level.

To what benefit?  Are paid members "above" charter members in some  
way?  What's the point of being a charter member?  What's the point of  
being a member period?  We need to think about turning around the  
problem of "we need money" into a solution of "here's what paying into  
OSGeo gets you".  The most consistent place we do that is in the  
workshops and the conference, but we seem to have an aversion to  
making that our major fundraising venture.  Paul and Jeff's foray into  
trying to brand OSGeo training/workshops was also met with much  
trepidation and handwringing, which in the end submarined it.  Paul  
now does training for OpenGeo (/me waves).

> * Looking at my typically underused travel budget.
> * Designating a portion of any FOSS4G profits (several directors are  
> often part of ensuring FOSS4G is a success)

I wonder if we could explore some sort of profit split with the local  
committee that runs the FOSS4G event.  Also, change the selection  
criteria to include potential profitability.  If there are cries for  
the unfairness of that, let those crying attempt to run an OSGeo- 
branded conference locally at a profit.  I'm very happy Sydney eeked  
over the line this year, but that choice provided enough risk to  
seriously damage OSGeo as an organization (if we ended up at a  
$50-100k loss -- maybe I'm wrong and there was no risk of that).  If  
running the conference provides that much risk to our organization, we  
should do what we can to ensure we get some of the upside to make our  
organization stronger.

The conference and the workshops provide real value for individuals  
whereas we must justify our existence and practically beg for  
corporate sponsorships that have ethereal value to giant  
organizations.  Pay workshop presenters way, pay for facilities, and  
provide real value.  Meet where it is easy for lots of people to reach  
(I doubt this is in the US, either).  The terrible economics make open  
source more attractive, not less.  That means potentially more  
attention for our workshops and presentations.  We shouldn't have to  
beg when we can provide real value.

Howard