[Board] Board meeting in two days 2011-11-10

[Frank Warmerdam]

On 11-11-08 07:00 AM, Arnulf Christl (OSGeo) wrote:
> Board,
> this is a reminder for our next board meeting.
>
> Please go through the agenda [1] and raise questions via this list - if
> you have any. There has been very little response to some quite
> intricate issues raised on this list over the past weeks (is there a
> long holiday I wasn't aware of?)
>
> And please add to the agenda yourself.

Arnulf / Board Members,

Unfortunately I negligently allowed a work meeting to be booked at the same
time as our board meeting and since this falls in work hours I think I'll
have to do the work.

To partially make up for this, I'll at least comment here on some of my
thoughts relative to our agenda.

1) Motion to accept Jody as new Incubation Chair - enthusiastic support!

2) Motion to establish a NA chapter.  I feel there needs to be substantially
more discussion on the NA chapter list about the role of this chapter, how
it relates to other north american chapters, and what it will do.  In
particular I am not comfortable with the plan stated on the page to establish
a 501(c)3 for this chapter.

The wiki page states "We formally petition" but as one of the people on the
list I don't feel the proto-chapter has reached any such consensus yet.

Note that doesn't mean things can get going.  Lots of proto-chapters operate
for years without/before receiving formal designation.

I would be supportive of the board making a statement of support
towards north american volunteers holding a north american FOSS4G
branded event in the coming year if that is helpful.

3) I am not clear on what discussion there needs to be with regard to Beijing.
Is this about contracting someone (ie. Jeff) to provide additional support
for FOSS4G 2012?

4) I am supportive of us doing work on the bylaws and constitution.  However,
I hope it won't proceed *too* quickly.  I'd like to see an opportunity for
the whole membership to have input.  I also feel we need some legal support
if we change both of these.  I am hopeful we can start getting some ideas
together and inviting broader discussion.  Actually I see according to the
bylaws the members need to vote on amendments.

I would like to see some adjustments to the bylaws including:
  o Codify some aspect of our charter and board election into the bylaws,
    particularly to clarify that such actions may take place by email
    or other electronic means in place of a face to face annual meeting.
    Actually, I can see that is fairly well covered already.  Perhaps no
    change is required to this part.
  o We should likely clarify the project steering committee section to
    reword 6.3 so that they can basically manage their own membership
    with the exception that the board can dissolve or reconstitute them.
    I'd like to preserve and possibly clarify the part about there being
    an officer on each committee (ie. the chair/contact) assigned/approved
    by the board.
  o We might consider rewording "Member" to "Charter Member" and
    "Associate Member" to "Member".

It is not immediately clear to me that we need to talk about local chapters
or sponsorships in the bylaws.  Keep in mind once things are in the bylaws
they are considerably harder to change so I prefer to keep them modest.
But they should provide necessary protection for the goals of the foundation
from a deranged board.

Somehow I had thought we already had some sort of formal corporate
constitution.  Perhaps I'm thinking of articles of incorporation that
are distinct from the bylaws?

5) Re: Open Source Track at Geospatial World Forum I am not clear that
the board needs to be involved.  I'd think this would wall into the
purvue of the Marketting committee or to any volunteers willing to
pursue the matter.

6) I think we should just mark the What's Working and What's Not Working
as antiquated and drop references to them from other documents.

7) I do not feel it is necessary for the board to direct the
web committee to act on the redesign.  I think it might make
sense to ask the web committee to review it's membership and
leadership in order to ensure the members and chair are
reasonably active.  If we were to entertain a motion to direct
the web committee to act on the proposed redesign I would vote
no, partly because I'm not keen on the redesign for several
reasons covered elsewhere, and because I feel it would be
unnecessary interference in the operation of the committee.

8) I am supportive of Arnulf assuming the roal of "Sponsorship
Goto Person" as long as the sponsorship program itself is not
materially altered from that approved by the board (hence I'm
slightly uncomfortable with referring to this as a Czar).

I am very strongly opposed to giving a percentage of sponsorship
funds raised to the person who arranges the sponsorship.  This
feels so very wrong on many levels.  I would not be opposed to
some sort of gift for someone who arranges a sponsorship
relationship.  Possibly something along the line of swag or
even a substantial chunk off the price of admission to FOSS4G
(perhaps $200 off registration).   I would also be supportive of
the foundation providing for travel costs of volunteers who
travel to build a sponsorship relationship under the existing
ambassador program authorized in September.  Daniel and Arnulf
are already able to authorize such costs.

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/warmerda
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer