[OSGeo-Discuss] What is sponsorship?: was Re: Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Wed Jul 2 18:33:30 PDT 2014

Dirk,

I’ve had another think about this. There is a fundamental issue here that
needs to be discussed.

I’ll use the Government example below to try and explain my concern:

=====
"*G*overnments are happy to have such a movement as the Free and open
source software [2] movement, because they can avoid vendor lock-in,
gain control over their projects (read: become free again), and save a
lot of money. They should take this advantage seriously and sponsor open
source activities."
=====

As someone who works within a Government organisation and who is an
advocate for the use of open source software, I feel that I can comment.

Your observations are valid, apart for 'saving lots of money', because
there is always a cost associated with any software, including open source.

I’ve had a a number of conversations over the last twelve months with a
number of my peers both within my organisation and within peer
organisations globally about how we can better work within selected open
source communities to help develop, maintain, test, document etc  software
that is of interest to us. We are particularly interested in extending
some software for specific requirements that we have.

We are very mindful that we don’t want to be seen as trying to take over a
project, or to take it in a direction that their PSC don’t want to go in.
Therefore there will need to be ongoing engagement to ensure that we act
as, and are also seen as being, team players within the relevant project.

I won’t discuss the actual types of development yet. That will be for a
future email.

Speaking generally, while we are often constrained on what dollars we have
available to spend on either sponsorship or procurement, we often have
developers, testers etc who could perhaps work on OS Project activities
that **meet our business requirements**.

This approach does create challenges for us, particularly for the need to
work within internal projects that are subject to internal governance
processes, timelines and deliverables. As well as the need to ensure that
new developments are available for the long term within OS projects.
However, I think that these challenges can be worked through.

One of the benefits for us in working with open source software,
particularly on some of the areas that we need to work on, is that the
investment that we make in *time and effort* is not locked away in a
‘black-box’ implementation, but can be re-used by other projects and
parties as required.

So the issue is that we can’t assume that organisations in the categories
that you’ve outlined below (and others as yet to be defined) are in a
position to contribute funding by way of sponsorship dollars. Some may be
able to, and some won’t.

In my opinion, contributing dollars by way of sponsorship places me in a
situation that I don’t want to be in. That position is one of being a
customer to OSGeo. I don’t want a customer/supplier relationship.

I would much rather be seen as a good contributing community member who is
working towards a common goal.

Therefore the sponsorship that I would like to contribute is expertise,
time and effort: not dollars.

Thank you for initiating this thread. We need more discussion on these
types of issues.

Bruce

On 2/07/2014 9:57 am, "Bruce Bannerman" <B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au> wrote:

>Hi Dirk,
>
>Well said.
>
>However as someone who fits in all four categories that you¹ve defined, I
>must point out that the sponsorship dollars may perhaps not be in these
>categories either.
>
>I find it easier to contribute time as **a member of the community** and
>definitely do not want to be seen as merely a sponsor.
>
>Bruce
>
>
>
>On 2/07/2014 2:46 am, "Dirk Frigne" <dirk.frigne at geosparc.com> wrote:
>
>>Although I am not so active on the mailing list,  I am an OSGeo's
>>advocate, and I take the opportunity to promote OSGeo wherever I can.
>>
>>I became an OSGeo member in 2007 because I was proud on what the
>>organisation did and I wanted to support it, with the scarce resources I
>>own.
>>
>>One of the things I appreciate enormously is
>>
>>- The organisation is open (as in open source)
>>- Becoming a member of the organisation is totally free (*yes* like in
>>free beer!)
>>- the organisation has a perfect DNA:
>>    - members can
>>        - act as *A* user
>>        - act as *T*echnical skilled person (sofware developers,
>>industry, documentation)
>>        - work at *G*overmental body
>>        - member of the s*C*ientific world (academic world)
>>
>>In the world of today *free* as in gratis, *free* as in *free* *beer*,
>>doing something for
>>somebody else is very rare (scarce) that it becomes very valuable.
>>Being a part of a community like OSGeo not only is *fun* but also gives
>>you a *good* feeling, and it is very motivating to work in a company or
>>organisation that supports OSGeo.
>>
>>I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having
>>that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to
>>the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo
>>community didn't result in any bad experience until now)
>>
>>Of course, an organisation needs money, To support some stuff (.svn or
>>whathever goal is worth supporting). But I think we should keep the
>>membership *free* (and not as in *free* beer!), because it is in my eyes
>>a very essential part of OSGeo:
>> 
>>"Core principles are:
>>
>>    OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation.
>>    OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives
>>which support themselves. " [1]
>>
>>As in DNA, different chains have different roles.
>>
>>*G*overnments are happy to have such a movement as the Free and open
>>source software [2] movement, because they can avoid vendor lock-in,
>>gain control over their projects (read: become free again), and save a
>>lot of money. They should take this advantage seriously and sponsor open
>>source activities.
>>
>>the s*C*ientific world is happy to use open source solutions, because
>>they can study the tools themselves and focus on research, not being
>>bothered of the licenses they are using.
>>They also should take this advantage seriously and donate scientific
>>relevant material they don't want to exploit immediately to the
>>community.
>>
>>*A*ny user should be free (*not* as in free beer) to use and experiment
>>with the results of what the community is producing. The community
>>should welcome *A*ny user and help him to find his way, so he can take
>>his responsibility and earn respect for what he is doing.
>>
>>And last but not least: the *T*echnically skilled persons are the heart
>>of the community. Being able to create great teamwork and donate back to
>>the community. Also they should take their responsibility and earn the
>>respect they deserve.
>>
>>But where is the money we need to operate the organisation?
>>
>>Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who
>>should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should
>>remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the
>>intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back.
>>
>>The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional
>>involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C).
>>So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for
>>the support, but these professional actors.
>>And they (the professional actors) should become a member (in their role
>>of incorporation) to support it. But sponsored membership should not
>>give rights to vote, or whatsoever. The only thing you gain is that you,
>>as a professional incorporation, are happy with an organisation as
>>OSGeo, fighting for your rights to be able to use *free* software.  And
>>the sponsors should trust and believe that a low capital, volunteer
>>focused organisation will do that for them, as they do it already today.
>>
>>The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the
>>common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events
>>today.
>>
>>my 2c
>>
>>[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities
>>[2] http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software
>>
>>Dirk
>>On 24-06-14 15:12, Even Rouault wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Interesting topic that raises quite a few questions.
>>>
>>> I think that all people who have commented in that thread have not
>>>necessarily
>>> agreed if membership fees would be something in addition to the
>>>nomination and
>>> election processs, or if it would replace it.
>>>
>>> If we switch to a paid membership, one would likely have to identify
>>>the
>>> benefits brought by being a member. Voting rights for the board would
>>>probably
>>> not a big enough benefit. In the AAG example quoted by Paul, there are
>>>several
>>> benefits associated: access to journals, reduced prices to
>>> publications/meetings, etc... That would mean that there is a
>>>commitment of
>>> OSGeo to provide the advertized benefits, and thus the question on how
>>>to
>>> guarantee this commitment would arise : volunteers effort, or paid
>>> staff/contractors ?
>>> Interestingly one of the benefit of AAG membership is access to "AAG
>>>specialty
>>> groups" whose equivalent in OSGeo would probably be our mailing lists.
>>>So would
>>> we want to restrict access to those to non members ? Mateusz also
>>>mentionned
>>> that bills have to be paid to maintain some OSGeo servers, like svn.
>>>Would we
>>> want to restrict access to those servers only to the folks who have
>>>paid the
>>> membership fee ? Probably not.
>>>
>>> We have only mentionned individual members, but would we want to extend
>>>to
>>> corportate members as well ?
>>>
>>> From my perspective, OSGeo Charter membership is a recognition for the
>>> accomplishments of an individual to support OSGeo values and missions,
>>>and thus
>>> gets a right to define its steering through board election. Perhaps we
>>>at a
>>> community sometimes fail to welcome people who would deserve it,
>>>because they
>>> are a bit outside of our usual networks to be nominated (or because
>>>people are
>>> not confortable enough to do public nominations, perhaps for language
>>>or
>>> cultural reasons), or because we reach the yearly quota for new
>>>members. That's
>>> certainly a pitty if folks feel excluded whereas I think we generally
>>>try to be
>>> rather inclusive.
>>>
>>> One thing to keep in mind is that if we translate into money the value
>>>of the
>>> accomplishments of OSGeo Charter members, I'm pretty sure that in
>>>99.99% of the
>>> cases that translates to much more than USD 70. You can probably add
>>>one or two
>>> zeros to that figure. So asking them for a fee, in addition to their
>>>other forms
>>> of contribution, would seem a bit awkward, although I can understand
>>>that
>>> contribution in term of money rather than time is sometimes more
>>>useful. So I
>>> wouldn't object to paying a membership fee.
>>>
>>> But IMHO the main question is : do we need membership fees to sustain
>>>OSGeo ?
>>> Aren't surplus funds generated by FOSS4G sufficient for that (although
>>>I can
>>> understand that Howard's fear that FOSS4G organization by volunteers
>>>might not
>>> be a sustainable model) ? Or perhaps we would need more funds to be
>>>able to do
>>> more things ?
>>>
>>> OSGeo is perhaps rather different from other organizations in the
>>>geomatics
>>> field in the way it manages its membership, but is it more a strength
>>>or a
>>> weakness ?
>>>
>>> Even
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>-- 
>>Yours sincerely,
>>
>>
>>ir. Dirk Frigne
>>CEO
>>
>>Geosparc n.v.
>>Brugsesteenweg 587
>>B-9030 Ghent
>>Tel: +32 9 236 60 18
>>GSM: +32 495 508 799
>>
>>http://www.geomajas.org
>>http://www.geosparc.com
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Discuss mailing list
>>Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>