Islandwood Code sprint (was Re: [Board] New MOUs proposed...)

Tue Sep 6 09:48:57 PDT 2011

Thanks for the debate on this.  My sense of the board right now is as I
think Arnulf is saying: generally people are in favor of this sprint
specifically, but before approving it want to first (1) understand our
financial model and (2) set our goals better so that sprint funding would be
"in scope".

( At a personal, tactical level, we may have missed the window for the
IslandSprint event, and for that I'm obviously saddened -- but I'm the one
who chose to try to organize it, and I could have chosen to come to OSGeo
earlier if I'd wanted to, so I'm not blaming anyone but myself.  As a board
member and as a strategic issue, however, I intent to try to make code
sprints be something that OSGeo encourages and fosters in the future. )

-mpg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:board-
> bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Seven (aka Arnulf)
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:55 AM
> To: board at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: Islandwood Code sprint (was Re: [Board] New MOUs
> proposed...)
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Howard,
> thanks for your straight forward manner of approaching this and no, you
are
> not a jerk and yes, I concur that this is what OSGeo is about and we
should
> find a way of getting this done. During our F2F we should come to a
> conclusion about how to do it. More inline.
> 
> On 06.09.2011 15:57, Howard Butler wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> >
> >> On 11-09-04 04:45 AM, Jo Work wrote:
> >>>
> >>> However, (and excuse the newbie for speaking out of turn), a few
> >>> things bother me. The first, is that it does set a precedent for
> >>> people asking for help in the future- what's to stop any local
> >>> chapter or event organiser asking in future- sure we can always say
> >>> no but don't we need a framework in place to avoid accusations of
> >>> favouritism?
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is alos my main concern: I am worried that this would set a
> >> precedent, without a clear framework to decide to support or not
> >> other events in the future.
> >>
> >> I guess the obvious response will be "let's define this framework
> >> then"... but I fear that won't be as easy as it sounds.
> >
> > Isn't the board already the framework that decides what activities fit
> > within OSGeo's mission on a case-by-case basis?  Otherwise, we're in
> > an endless loop of committees and frameworks when the actual decision
> > still boils down to the board and its willingness or not to act.
> 
> Yes an no. There are directors on board who could be seen as directly
> profiting from OSGeo sponsoring things.
> 
> This is a general issue which sometimes prevents things from happening but
> at the same time it is a good problem to have. It is also why some
projects did
> not opt in for the project sponsorship program, and maybe also the reason
> why very little money has gone through these potential channels yet.
> 
> > Simply:
> >
> > - Do we have the money?
> 
> This is aquestion of opinion, nothing that can be hammered out as a
singular
> truth. My understanding is yes, that we have the money. Other who might
> want to take less risk or have more stakes in it might be more
conservative in
> their judgement. This is why we have diversity on the board. If I was the
only
> one deciding how to spend money we would probably not have any reserve
> at all. :-)
> 
> (we don't know how much money we have, it
> > seems)
> 
> We do know how much money we have now, this is not the problem. But
> the further we look into the future the more this number becomes a
> probability. This is just regular business, nobody knows the expact
numbers
> half a year ahead if any of the sponsors can at any time decide to not
> continue to sponsor OSGeo.
> 
> - - Does it fit our mission? (it's unclear what our mission is
> 
> These are several things.
> 1. Yes it fits our mission
> 2. Our mission is clear: OSGeo ...created to support and build the
highest-
> quality open source geospatial software. Our goal is to encourage the use
> and collaborative development of community-led projects. Join us by
signing
> up to our mailing lists or check out the Getting Started page to become
more
> involved.
> 
> Then:
> "The foundation provides financial, organizational and legal support to
the
> broader open source geospatial community." [2]
> 
> > and everyone has a different idea on this one) -
> 
> Yes, and this is good because it is also our mission to be a broadly
inclusive
> gloabl organization. By definition this is a pretty broad perspective. It
means
> that we sometimes do different things at the same time. The alternative is
to
> decide which one we prioritize. We are not very good at prioritizing, in
part
> due to not wanting to take money from a not-for-profit organization - see
> above - to avoid favoritism.
> 
> > Do we trust the
> > folks acting on our behalf? (pretty sure the answer to this is yes
> > :)
> 
> Who are you refering to? Concretely Michael Gerlek as organizer of the
code
> sprint? In this case I absolutely trust and vouch for him. Who are the
others
> acting on OSGeo's behalf? The directors, Tyler (on behalf of the board),
all
> Local Chapter chairs and project and committee chairs.
> They have all at one point been elected by people who trust them, so
> chances are hight that we can trust them all.
> 
> > How is the framework anything more than that?
> 
> Well, as said above the framework needs funds to make any sense. If the
> board is not prepared to take the risk based on the current numbers we
have
> to change the numbers by either using our funds differently or we have to
> acquire more funding.
> 
> For the latter I want to again propose that we implement a bounty system
> for fund raisers. Anybody who gets a new sponsor for OSGeo receives a
> percentage of the sponsorhip. It should be simple enough to implement,
> does not cost us anything and if it does not work we can drop it again.
> 
> Cheers,
> Arnulf
> 
> > Howard_______________________________________________
> Board mailing
> > list Board at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 
> [1] http://www.osgeo.org/
> [2] http://www.osgeo.org/about
> 
> - --
> 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/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk5mQlcACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b1OpQCeNl6iNVj0FjdWsLLpGnyr
> Wc9w
> arUAnR+C0EWpYoHFvjpqQU6SQm1y+Jt8
> =xp55
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board