[OSGeo-Discuss] Individual vs. corporate belonging

[Dave McIlhagga]

Generally I agree with Frank on this, although perhaps provision should
be made for an organization to request an individual be fast-tracked for
membership in these exceptional circumstances, where a proposed new
member could be brought to the attention of the board/membership for
determination of acceptance of the new member.

I do think though that it's critical that all membership decisions
remain with the Foundation Membership/Boards ie. no 'Free Pass' for any
organization or we risk a slippery slope of allowing too much outside
organizational influence.

Dave


-- 
Dave McIlhagga
President, DM Solutions Group

http://www.dmsolutions.ca
EMail : dmcilhagga at dmsolutions.ca
Phone : 613-565-5056 x15
Fax : 613-565-0925

Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> 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,