[Board] OSGeo vs 501c3 status - inpur required

[Michael P. Gerlek]

Cameron is spot on -- I continue to champion the idea of OSGeo as a very lightweight federation of related efforts and projects.

Going to the discuss-list is the Right Thing To Do, but we should expect some response against the proposal: historically there have always been some who wish to pursue significant funding opportunities and prod the board to do so. However, for various reasons, the Board and the Community have never been able to put together a business plan for it.

-mpg



On Nov 9, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:

> Re Daniel's question: "Do we want to maintain the project sponsorship program and setup a taxable subsidiary for it, or do we drop the project sponsorship program completely?"
> 
> I'm in favour of dropping the sponsorship program and complications associated with a taxable subsidiary.
> 
> I think that we need to distinguish between what we want, and what we are good at and have the resources to achieve.
> 
> Yes, we would all love to have sponsors throw lots of money at OSGeo, and OSGeo to then spend that money on worthy OSGeo activities. But there is lots of effort involved in attracting sponsors, and OSGeo volunteers tend not to be interested in chasing money. Also, OSGeo companies and/or individuals seem to have a better track record in attracting funds.
> 
> My opinion is that OSGeo should focus on what it does best - having volunteers supporting other volunteers, which is all done on a shoe string budget without the red tape which is introduced when money is involved. We are at our best when our organisational structures are light weight, allowing us to be dynamic, responsive and open to capturing volunteer enthusiasm.
> 
> Hence I'm +0 for dropping the sponsorship program. It would take someone putting together a compelling business plan, resourcing strategy, and personal commitment in order to convince me otherwise.
> 
> Daniel,
> It would be good to float this question past the discuss list before a final decision is made, such that we can give others the opportunity to put forward their thoughts.
> 
> On 10/11/2012 9:36 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>> MPG is right that we need to discuss this since it's an important decision.
>> 
>> FYI, we just requested an extension which, if it is approved, will leave us a few more days to make a decision. Let's aim to make our final decision no later than Thursday at the board meeting.
>> 
>> In the meantime, please keep the discussion going so that we can come up with something we're comfortable with by Thursday.
>> 
>> Ref to the IRS letter and questions to refresh your memory:
>> http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/board/irs_docs/OSGeo-IRS-Letter-20120914.pdf
>> 
>> Daniel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 12-11-09 3:50 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>>> We really need to discuss this as a group - failing that, though, due to time, I think everyone should weigh in on this.
>>> 
>>> I'm against forming a taxable subsidiary at this time: I don't think our current business plans justify the work right now.
>>> 
>>> -mpg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 9, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Board,
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe my mail from yesterday was too long and you missed the question targeted at you. So just in case here it comes again, and please let me know what your preference is if you have one, or if you don't know then it's okay to say so, but at least acknowledge that you read this email.
>>>> 
>>>> Our deadline to respond to the IRS is next week. I'll try to get another extension from them, but we need to make a decision on which way we go soon in order to craft a response.
>>>> 
>>>> So the question we need to ask ourselves now is:
>>>> 
>>>> "Do we want to maintain the project sponsorship program and setup a taxable subsidiary for it, or do we drop the project sponsorship program completely?"
>>>> 
>>>> I think the taxable subsidiary is manageable, but to justify it, we'd need to put more efforts in the project sponsorship program since at this time it is mostly dormant. (OpenLayers and GRASS are interested but I've kept them on hold, and GDAL is... well, quiet)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Unless I hear back from other board members with a strong position one way or the other, I am planning to continue trying to qualify as a 501c3 foundation with a taxable subsidiary for the project sponsorship program and whatever other taxable activity we may have in the future.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Daniel
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Board mailing list
>>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cameron Shorter
> Geospatial Solutions Manager
> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
> 
> Think Globally, Fix Locally
> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
> http://www.lisasoft.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board