[Board] USGIF Conference and diatribe on where we are heading

[Mark Lucas]

Arnulf,

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to this.  Your response helped me better understand.  Typically, there were points I agreed and disagreed with.  More importantly, I think I'm beginning to see a path where we might all converge.  I was holding off waiting for more comments to come in, perhaps my response will trigger those.


On Oct 27, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote:
> 
>> Open source software is suddenly interesting because of dramatic budget
>> cuts that are planned for most of the agencies.
> 
> ...which in my opinion is always a difficult path to star from. I know -
> this is a great chance and I do not want to downplay it, but I also
> think that we have done a pretty good job of making a pitch for Open
> Source explicitly *without* the focus on cost alone, but all the other
> arguments.

Agree totally, budget is the forcing function, but we are focusing discussions on agility and the other benefits.


> My understanding is different. Instead, to me it seems like this will be
> the *first* year where NA will actually "dare" to have it's own
> conference. This is great and I am all for supporting it. If you
> recollect I explicitly asked at the AGM whether someone would volunteer
> to organize it and someone stood up.

I'd like to see this as well.  There is still discussion about negative impacts to the Beijing event - I believe the statistics show that is not the case.
I believe Jeff, maybe others, are concerned about focus on organizing the events.  I think we should address that.  Again, I'd support funding Jeff to 
stay in front of the Beijing activities - the OSGeo should be primarily focused on a successful international conference.  We need to segment off the organization
a NA event - more on that below.

> 
>> Indeed, there almost seems to be a reluctance to focus on raising
>> revenue for the organization - instead focusing on how to allocate what
>> we have to code sprints, travel, etc.  
> 
> I think you got this wrong - nobody is saying that we should refrain
> from collecting more funds to be able to do more. Instead (at least I
> am) desperate to get going again and suggested to restart the Funding
> Committee. But our set up so far did not work out to actually achieve
> this goal which is why we changed it.
> 
>> We want to support the building of open source geospatial software.  I
>> would contend that we can do more if we (the board) focus on running the
>> organization more like a business.
> 
> As Tim I disagree here. Yes, some aspects of running a business can and
> should be applied to OSGeo but I do not think that it should become a
> business-like operation. I see OSGeo global or international (let's
> finally find a name for this) more like a UN like structure, ideally
> without a big budget. In my opinion we should focus on the Local
> Chapters to do this in whatever way is appropriate for it's cultural
> surrounding. Again - this is something where North America has not been
> at the front of things due to (absolutely understandable) reasons that
> were mentioned here before. One of the most important aspects is
> language (anything you do in English seems to compete with OSGeo Int'l)
> but also the fact that OSGeo is incorporated in the US.

This is the area where I disagree the most, but perhaps I'm also beginning to see a path forward.

The UN is not very focused, effective or efficient. It constantly struggles to raise funding - even though it has established countries as members.
Passing off responsibility for raising funding to a financial committee is doomed to failure.  
The OSGeo is doing a great job at starting charters, but the charters are more like  clubs than contributing sponsors.
If you look at the successful non-profits in the US you will find that they build up to a point where they have a core staff that is motivated to keep their jobs by growing and sustaining the organization.

I wonder if there maybe is a cultural bias here.  In the US it is very competitive - you raise money and sustain yourself, or you shut down.  Europe has many organizations that form up and try to operate through consensus.  I'm sure we will learn different approaches from Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world.  (I digress)

> 
> Let me add some more random thoughts. What I have to say might not make
> all of us comfortable - so please approach this with an open mind.
> 
> As you all know I am not happy with the current compilation of board
> members. I highly respect and personally like you all - plus I am
> thankful that you invest all the time needed to pursue furthering OSGeo.
> But 7/9 directors are from northern America and native English speakers
> and the two remaining board members are from Europe. In many aspects
> Europe is very comparable to the US and Canada. Forgive me for lumping
> us all in one bucket but you know where I am getting at: This is not an
> international representation.
> 
> So I have been wondering whether we should break down the current board
> of directors and start again from a different angle. I can see excellent
> leadership and great ideas in the current board and believe that you
> could perfectly well populate a North American Local Chapter - kind of a
> meta chapter. This North American Chapter could then incorporate as a
> not-for-profit (if they see the need), start to build it's own budget,
> have elections, organize FOSS4G conferences, employ staff, conduct
> training events and so on.
> 
> What do you think?


Not the path that I was on (I have a different near term focus) , but found that I could agree with your logic.

I am thinking that we establish a NA Charter and run a NA conference this year.  The devil is in the details.

Looking forward to responses from the board (or lurkers on the board list).

Mark







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20111030/98a751ef/attachment.htm>