[OSGeo-Discuss] Individual vs. corporate belonging

[Frank Warmerdam]

Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> We currently define "member" as an "individual", not a "company" or 
> other group.  Once the board and 45-membership is fully constituted, I 
> would like to consider the following (hypothetical!) situation:
> 
> Let us imagine LizardTech has paid my way to go to the Chicago meeting, 
> given me the time to follow this mailing list, to lurk on #osgeo, and 
> indeed let us say even donated $X directly to the foundation to promote 
> open source efforts.
> Let us then imagine that LizardTech and I part ways for one reason or 
> another.
> 
> This leaves LizardTech without a membership representative looking after 
> their "investment" into OSGeo.  If our ultimate 
> membership-nomination-and-acceptance process is even moderately onerous, 
> should LizardTech in this case be given some sort of waiver to 
> fast-track a new person into the foundation?

Michael,

I don't think so.  Note that the only real representation that membership
gives is an opportunity to vote on board members.  Other than that anyone
can participate in committees, projects and so forth.  So I don't think
that employee membership should be seen as a way to provide companies with
influence that in some way corresponds to their contribution.

Individual project management committees might take different approaches
to representation within their project.  For instance, if a company that
was a major ongoing contributor to MapServer lost the staffer that had
commit access, I think the MapServer PMC (well currently TSC) would be
well disposed to granting someone else from that company commit access.

I do think that "sponsors", companies or organizations donating money
to the foundation or through the foundation to foundation projects do
need some degree of input.  We might well need to form a "sponsors
committee" at some point that plays an advisory role.

Generally speaking though, as long as we stick with an "individual member"
approach there will be limits to the amount of "hard power" that corporate
entities will be able to exert.  Of course, I think a history of contribution
will tend to carry with it a moral persuasion that may be more powerful than
a voting membership or even a seat on the board.

> (Contrariwise, note that I would still get to be a member, under the 
> guise of my hypothetical new employer.)

Right.  Membership is not tied to the employer, though it could lapse over
time if you ceased to participate in any activities.  I love the apache
concept of "promoting" inactive members to the "member emeritus" status.
It sounds so much better than kicking them out for not contributing for
a while.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
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 Programmer for Rent