[Board] Things mpg doesn't understand

[Jeroen Ticheler]

Hi all,
I fully support this observation. A local committee organizing a NA conference makes sense to me, but we should avoid creating local chapters for the sake of creating a local chapter while it may dilute energy put into OSGeo as a whole. 

Lastly I don't think OSGeo fails to deliver. There is a solid annual conference and a brand that is an umbrella on top of all significant geospatial FOSS.

There are things to be improved, and let's do that in OSGeo, not drift away into small local chapters with even less people volunteering to either one.

My 2cents,
Greetings,
Jeroen

On 11 nov. 2011, at 19:05, "Michael P. Gerlek" <mpg at flaxen.com> wrote:

> I've read the latest batch of mails, and thought about this for a while, and so here are some of the things I don't understand about the NA Chapter idea:
> 
> - If this is an NA chapter, how come only US and Canada are represented?  Where is Mexico, Cuba, et al?  Is NA an English-only chapter?
> - How do we intend to pursue US DoD support if Cuba is part of the chapter (I see conflicts in both directions on that one!)
> - Does this chapter intend to pursue an NA conference?  Or are those two things separate?
> - Would it be better to have a NA chapter *and* a US Fed chapter?  Making an chapter directly affiliated with USGIF would be *very* cool in today's climate.
> - Is there going to be paid staff (which I think is/was Mark's intent)?
> - If the NA chapter is going after significant $, I would like to understand how the board and members are chosen, etc.
> - If the NA chapter is going to get significant $, does OSGeo Internat'l get a percentage of the proceeds (for using "our name", as has been discussed for conferences)?
> - What, if any, is the overlap between the intended outreach activities of OSGeo I11N and OSGeo NA?
> 
> The wiki says the NA chapter is neither duplicative of the Internat'l chapter or any local chapters, so I guess I don't understand the intended mission.  I would have thought (for example) "coordinating closely" with GITA was something OSGeo Internatl would do, and indeed we talked about that in Denver.
> 
> I am wondering if this NA chapter might becoming a way to make an end run around the fact that OSGeo itself isn't doing enough beyond supporting developers.  If so, I'm obviously sympathetic -- but that means we as the board are failing, and I'd MUCH rather see the current internat'l board address this.
> 
> In summary, I'm not sure I see much value that an NA chapter brings that OSGeo Internat'l can't provide, if done right -- especially given that, as pointed out yesterday, there is the perception that OSGeo Internat'l is already very NA-centric (7/9 of the board, for example).   (but I would be in favor of a US Fed or US DoD chapter)
> 
> -mpg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board