[Board] UNOFFICIAL minutes from yesterday's meeting

Wed Feb 27 11:39:35 PST 2013

Michael,
Thanks for the notes. Some inline comments:

On 28/02/2013 3:22 AM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> Below are the lightly edited notes I took.
>
> Please check to see if I quoted you incorrectly or anything. I'll post the real minutes to the wiki in a couple days after I get feedback.
>
> -mpg
>
>
>
>
>
> [10:20] call to order
>
> roll call
> - Cameron - Au
> - Daneil - Canada
> - Frank - US
> - Jacym - Cz
> - Jeff - Ca
> - Michael - US
> - Anne - Italy
> - (Hobu and Matt Wilkie lurked)
>
> [10:23] review of minutes from Jan 17
> - motion to approve - 1/Frank, 2/Cameron 2nd, all +1
>
> [10:26] on to regular business
>
> geotools new contribution agreement
> - motion to approve - 1/Cameron, 2/Jeff, all +1
>
> Anne to be GSOC mentor
> - motion to approve - 1/Frank, 2/Daniel, all +1
>
> [10:32] open discussion about osgeo priorities
>
> - http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2013-February/010516.html
>
> - mpg: do what osgeo members want to do and will do, and do not try / wring-hands over other things
> - mpg suggests 4 lists: "I+" (where income comes from), "I-" (where income not expected from), "E+" (planned expenses), "E-" (expenses we don't want)
> - I+: conference income primary source
> - E+: expenditure to main & regional conferences
> - mpg: "accept, but not chase" spnsorships
> - cameron: size of risk/income/expense should all be in proportion
> - jeff: small regional confs unsure if they can come to osgeo proper for support? - yes, they can - need to make this explicit
>
> - cameron: minimum suggested amount in bank - 50-80K?
> - mpg asks: how much return on investment for events?
> - cameron: suggests 1.10x, i.e. $1K investment ideally yields $1.1K return
> - jeff: does this mean each foss4g must generate 100K?
> - cameron: worst case scenario to break-even -- get back what we invested
> - cameron: codesprints supported by excess funds, different category from events
> - noted that "codesprint is a pure loss-making activity"
> - all generally in favor of "matching funds" policy
> - noted that these are principles and guidelines, not strict rules
> - jeff: "we're here to support"
>
> - cameron: we should not be paying for booths
> - frank (on IRC) clarifies: I think the idea is that paying for booth space at tradeshows can be very expensive and not a particularly good use of our funds.
> - jeff: line item for 'advocate travel' -- still valid? -- if they want us, they should pay for us
Our position is explained in the OSGeo-Advocate page:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate#Expenses
> - mpg/daniel: distinguish between "advocate" travel and "board business" travel
> - (anne speaks, but audio is poor - can't transcribe much)
>
> - frank: speaks of our "corporatist" beginnings, via Autodesk, but moving now towards grassroots
> - mpg applauds this sentiment
> - various terms suggested: "cheap", "scrappy", "spunky", "lean", "minimalist"
> - anne notes: would like to see more cooperation among projects and osgeo funding the meetups of osgeo projects' communities
> - mpg wonders aloud what mlucas and pmbatty would say to these discussions
> - aghisla: foss4g barcelona was not appealing for developers, more for presenting technologies and make a great "show" - forgive the term
> - frank: we are not all things to all people
>
> - jeff: "an environment in which osgeo service providers could thrive"
> - cameron: if the service provider effectiveness was important, how come no one has stepped up to fix it?
> - mpg: is SPD a core priority for us?
> - various: go to discuss list, throw a little money at it, have a contest, kill it, ...
>
> - cameron: livddvd at conferences

> - mpg: support for communities that already exist… or support incubation of new ideas w/o a community yet?
> - cameron: livddvd aimed at value to users, which means projects already extant
> - jeff: traveling for educational purposes... "osgeo labs"...  big success, goes back to an MOU with ICA
> - anne speaks to the value of Suchith's work - http://nottingham.academia.edu/SuchithAnand
> - mpg - points to osgeo labs as model if success -- low $ but high visibility, and no work from board to date
> - frank: "we just have to be supportive", stay out of their way (which is not to imply that we have been in their way)
> - jeff: we are farther than just "…and we support education too"
>
> - discussion turns to local chapters
> - mpg: LCs are low overhead for board, but big impact - another example of how ogee foundation is a win
> - mpg notes half his dev team came out of local chapter, promises to write some stuff about value & benefits of LCs
> - anne: speaks on osgeo journal, asks about value of the local chapter reports
> - anne: italian chapter was created long before becoming osgeo local chapter and connection is still weak
> - jeff: gets asked "why create a chapter?"
> - various: local events, networking, language affiliation, ...
> - cameron: note no need for overhead, funding, etc
cameron: ... based on OSGeo Australia/New Zealand local chapter 
experience, we decided against incorporating as it requires money, and 
then member focus is distracted by having to chase money just to keep 
the chapter working. The most effective part about our local chapter is 
having an email list to share ideas and coordinate activities and meetups.

> - daniel: local chapter "precursor" can be helped to perceive when it's appropriate to form a formal local chapter
> - anne points to local chapter mailing list to share experiences on how and why to establish local chapters
> - frank points to http://www.osgeo.org/content/chapters/guidelines.html
>
> [12:15pm] on to budget discussion
> - budget draft: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av9Xf1ehZXz-dHJRdGhXZlo4ako2b21qd2lXbVVMdGc#gid=0
> - (did not caputre details of line-items discussions)
> - noted that "co-contributing" == "matching funds"
> - cameron noted that livedvd featured at ~40 events, jeff thinks that is low(!)
OSGeo-Live has recorded as being used at 45 events in 2012. Reference: 
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_History
> - daniel asks: should we support the DVDs or the Projects?
> - cameron: ~150 people contributing
>
> - Q: should the board be paid travel expenses to the annual mtg?
> - mattw: "as an outsider, I think board members should be helped/encouraged to make the annual FOSS4G's, and funded to do so."
> - and what about conference registration expense?
> - frank says this is anti-scrappy
> - straw poll taken (I did nto record votes, sorry)
board members were undecided about whether to allocate travel budget to 
travel.
Key issues
1. Face to face meetings are generally agreed to be a very valuable way 
to communicate.
2. The Google Hangout meeting we had for the first time worked 
reasonably well, although there were a few minor technical glitches 
(anne's voice faded in and out). Even still, it is not as good as a face 
to face.
3. Most (all?) felt that board members should not be out pocket for 
joining the board, noting that board members contribute time for free.
4. The flip side is that most (all?) question the appropriateness of 
board members getting "freebies" such as free passage to a foss4g event.
5. Most (all?) recognised that the cost of moving all the board to one 
location, such as foss4g is a substantial portion of the board's budget. 
(Back of envelope calculations: 9 board members x $3K = $27K)

>
> - agreed to take rest of issues to mailing list and/or next meeting
>
> [1:20] adjourn
> _______________________________________________
> 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