[Board] IRC vs. matters of substance

[Frank Warmerdam]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Michael P. Gerlek <mpg at flaxen.com> wrote:
> At the close of today's IRC meeting, I was discouraged and wrote "I feel we have dealt with administrative matters, but resolved nothing of substance"; Frank asked for clarification.  To be specific, I feel we did not come to any closure a number of major items, including:
>
> - discussion of the North American chapter idea, and what it means as a precedent for OSGeo as a whole

Michael,

I will not that a north american chapter is not completely
precident setting.  For instance I believe we have a
Francophone group which is an umbrella over more than
one french speaking chapter though I believe it ended up
being less formal - more a mailing list liason rather than a
chapter.  Perhaps I'm wrong.

Certainly some chapters have their own corporate existance,
bank accounts and so forth.  My objection to that is the
practical hassles of accomplishing it more than a theoretical
objection.

As a board I have no objection to their being an NA chapter
as long as it can demonstrate some reasonably committed
members and some degree of consensus on it's mandate,
scope, etc which will mean some cooperation with existing
chapters in it's region.

I don't particularly feel most of this should be worked out at
the board level, but rather by discussion on the NA chapter list
and bringing in the local chapters in the region.

> - budget planning for 2012

Agreed.  I would like to have a budget in place by the
start of 2012 (for a change).  Traditionally it is the job of
the finance committee to bring a preliminary budget to the
board.  I have raised this issue on the finance committee
mailing list and volunteered to assist in this.

Ideally the board could provide some direction, and obviously
the board is in a position to adjust the proposed budget.  But
hopefully the finance committee can at least draft something
that clarifies expected expenses and revenue.

It is my intention that the draft budget will include some
money for marketting, the ambassador travel funding and
funding for a FOSS4G support role in 2012 in addition to
the standard SAC costs and a few administrative costs.

Suggestions for other things that ought to be there are
welcome, and we can have a bunch of options that the
board can decide on item by item.

I have set a target of the finance committee forwarding
something for board consideration by roughly the end of
this month.  Of course, I'm not commitee chair or treasurer
or anything so this is just me talking as a finance commitee
member.

> - the idea of outsourcing certain administrative functions

My understanding was that Peter was going to pursue some
options and come back with a proposal.  I think that Daniel
is considering this as well from at least a finance point of view
and might be able to bring something forward.  I agree we
need to make progress in this area.

But these are really things where someone needs to bring a
proposal to the board.  We can't make a decision in a vacuum.

> - ideas for pursuing sponsorships and funding opportunities

This is certainly desirable, but to be honest I am more
concerned about making operational transition within our
current funding levels right now.  Of course, anyone who
wants to pursue sponsorship and funding opportunities is
encouraged to do so.

> Indeed, we didn't even discuss the last three at all.  These issues are what we were elected to do; after taking the bold step of removing the ED position we told the membership we were looking at how OSGeo operates and considering the future of the organization, but we're not doing that.   I feel this requires dedicated face-to-face commitment from all of us.

I am, as often is the case, an incrementalist and to some extent
the organization as it stands today already reflects many of my
thoughts on how it ought to operate so I'm generally ambivalent
about this "consider the future of the organization" and strategic
planning sort of stuff.

Nevertheless, any board member can bring forward thoughts and
proposals.

> (We also did not get an update on our current financial health (how much $ do we have right now? how much did we get from Denver?) which I had thought we agreed to do every meeting?  but it may be simply that the treasurer transition isn't sufficiently done for that to easily happen yet)

I don't recall Daniel committing to meeting by meeting financial
reports.  I do think it would be reasonable to establish a policy
that the finance committee present the board with quarterly
financial reports within a few weeks of each end of quarter.

I have raised the topic of producing an end-of-year projection
on the finance committee mailing list.

I do believe Tyler has caught quick books up with all his
transactions and so in theory we can produce a report at
any time.  But I don't feel it is that helpful right now without
also addressing the costs of winding down the ED role which
won't yet be reflected in quickbooks.  Without that we don't have
a meaningful concept of our financial condition.

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