[OSGeo-Discuss] Board and Representational tasks (was: Geographic Diversity)

[Tim Bowden]

Ok, this one made me stop and think.  Here goes
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 15:23 +0200, Arnulf Christl wrote:
> 1,73 Euro-Cent
> 
[OT] I'll take that since the $AU crashed so badly in the last few days!

> Dearest all non-Directors,
> this interesting thread is void of relevance as long as we have no better understanding of what the title "OSGeo director" is good for. 
> 
Hmmm.  I've assumed it's mainly an administrative oversight role,
expressing and implementing policy as discussed and debated by members
on the relevant lists and committees, providing advice and assistance
(and guidance?) to local chapters as required.  Have I got it all wrong?

> Let me share my experience as a director over the past 1,5 years and maybe you can help me to understand what this thread is really about or where I could have better leveraged my position as an OSGeo director. 

<snip big activity statement, noting that much setup work needed to be
done and was done by the board>

> The voidness that I mention above refers to my limited understanding of what else the *title* of a director actually means to the people who spoke up on this topic. (for it is a long thread full of little concrete content and lots of hazy wishes). From this thread I gather that having the title obligates the director to use it as a means to achieve things. What things? Something related to visibility? Then please feel free to revive VisCom and get active there, it is the committee that makes the difference in perceiving the impotence  - ahm - importance of FOSSGIS. The chair position is semi vacant (me not living up to my own lowest expectations) - and you even become an OSGeo officer (aint that even way cooler than being a director?). My limited personal capacity prevents me from doing any of these tasks well. How can a lowest troll ever be a good director? Now that I see all this I feel that I should probably better resign to make space for someone with more potential in 
 le
> veraging The Director's powers. (Look at that sentence with so many I's. Is it not that we strive for the ego boost that lives in carrying the title of a Director?)

> What it boils down to is that if having the OSGeo Director title is so helpful in achieving things
No, I don't think it is.  Local chapters should be where most of the
activity takes place.  Open source gets it's potency from being a
community active at the grassroots level.  If the board can help empower
the organisation at this level then it will have done its job admirably.

>  then we should simply produce more of them. How that? 
Please don't.  The role (as I outlined it anyway) shouldn't be an
onerous one.

> By giving more importance to the local chapters
Yes, though I think they already have that importance when it comes to
grassroots activity.  Maybe that's a reality that's not always obvious
or recognised.

>  (first ridding this belittling name)
Regional chapters?  No, that's a problem for language chapters.  Are you
sure this is a problem?

>  and having Directors, Officer, Gurus, CxO or whatever-it-takes to make people appear important enough to impress others. 
IMHO fancy titles do nothing for getting the job done, with the
exception that at times it may be beneficial to be an official
representative or officer of OSGeo when organising trade show stands,
conventions etc.

> 
> Initially I had hoped that being an OSGeo *member* (I do not call them "simple" or "standard" on purpose) would actually help to do that. But we (the board) have not done a good job in conveying that the status of an OSGeo *member* is actually all you need to be "important". Instead we have promoted the charter members so that all now believe that those people actually *do* things. What on earth did they ever do? Nothing much at all! They voted for the initial directors and then they voted for some more buddies to also become charter members who then voted for the next set of directors. There should be no merit from simply having the  status of a charter member or a director if you do not actually *do* things. 
I feel uneasy about the distinction between charter and non charter
members.  It implies a more 'important' type of membership.  I also
don't like having such an informal 'normal' membership.  Do we have a
members register?  Is list membership considered to be OSGeo membership?
If so, we can't engage in discussion with anyone but ourselves!  What if
someone wants to join our discussion (mailing lists) but not consider
themselves to be an OSGeo member?  How are they distinguished from
'normal' members?  Personally I think charter membership should be
opened up to anyone who who wants to apply and can find an existing
member or two to second their application.  I realise part of the
rationale for the current structure was to avoid the organisation being
hijacked, but it would seem that OSGeo has a healthy enough community
that the risk of that is practically non-existent.  In the (very)
unlikely event that happened, the exodus of projects, members and
sponsors from the org would make it nothing but a hollow meaningless
shell worth nothing to the hijackers.

> 
> I apologize for having started to <rant> somewhere on the way and close it here </rant>. 
For my part I'm happy to see the ranting continue.  You've raised some
important issues.

> Watch the the board conference meeting on IRC in 1h38min if you want to see what little we do. And if you don't like it, rant on discuss. 
> 
Outcomes are the important thing.  If we can achieve our goals without
imposing a heavy burden on the board then surely that's a good thing?
It is a volunteer organisation after all.

> Best regards, 
> Arnulf. 
> 
> [1] http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=hPXz..&search=Machtgruppe
> [2] http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=hPXz..&search=Interessenvertretung

Tim Bowden