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

[Seven (aka Arnulf)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Frank,
thanks for this elaborate input! It will help us to get through our
meeting tonight. I added a few comments inline.

On 10.11.2011 06:25, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> 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.

No harm done. Relax your conscience.

> 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.

That was also my feeling, but not being a North American native this is
just an advice and I would probably go with a -0.

> 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.

Good point. This includes spending money from sponsors. In Germany for
years we relayed several 10s of k Euro through my old company CCGIS
before FOSSGIS constituted as a formal OSGeo Local Chapter.

> 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.

+1

> 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?

Yes. What is your take on this?

There is very little activity. Peter and me have tried to get things
going several times but to little avail. My time does not permit me to
pursue this with the required consistence, also because I will be mostly
offline for 2.5 months as of mid December.

My suggestions is to allocate 20k for Jeff to sort out FOSS4G Beijing.
The larger part of these 20k are compensation for the work time Jeff
spends on this. It also includes travel costs for at least one trip to
Beijing to get introduced to, instruct and accompany the local
organizing committee. This should happen asap. I have not been able to
talk about this in detail with Jeff yet so we will have to wait what he
has to say anyway. But a short reaction from your part would help me to
understand whether this suggestion makes any sense at all.

> 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".

Yes, good point. This also touches on the open task of creating a
regular membership level which makes people actually feel part of OSGeo.
Right now apart from the Charter, OSGeo membership is a very loose concept.

> 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.

With the change in leadership in Marketing my fear is that this will not
get done which is why I brought it up. I just followed up on the
Marketing mailing list (done).

> 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.

I support this.

> 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.

Started...

> 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).

No Czar airs and graces here, just wanting a central hub. And I hope
that we can take turns managing this.

> 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,

OK, so in this last point we are of a very different opinion. Maybe you
can share you issues with this proposal / explain in more depth what
bothers you.

Best regards,
Arnulf

- -- 
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk679hoACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b3bewCggog4xdJUTjMF1KvtQ0ZzAxRF
KowAn32HQi+2BYm74+S2nQd6t0w5tMfd
=t6jR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----