[Board] UNOFFICIAL minutes from yesterday's meeting

[Michael P. Gerlek]

I don't disagree… I'd expected in this case these notes to be used to help generate (1) a more textual treatment, which I think Cameron is on, and (2) the actual "minutes" page on the wiki, which I'd do at the level I've done in the past.

-mpg

On Feb 27, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com> wrote:

> Michael,
> 
> I am not entirely clear how much value there is in capturing fragments
> of the conversation as they exist in your notes. It does not capture
> the full discussion at the time, and leaves lots of room for
> confusion, particularly since most of it is not conclusions.
> 
> I'd prefer relatively minimal minutes that captured motions, action
> items and topics of conversation in broad terms.
> 
> If we are going to draft a do's and don't list or principles from the
> discussion I'd almost prefer they be a separate document that could be
> refined and that we might then reach (and possibly vote on) consensus
> on.
> 
> That said, I don't feel too strongly about this point.
> 
> Best regards,
> Frank
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Michael P. Gerlek <mpg at flaxen.com> 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
>> - 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
>> - 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(!)
>> - 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)
>> 
>> - 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
> 
> 
> 
> --
> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer