[OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)

Wed Jul 2 03:20:28 PDT 2014

Dirk++ !

Cheers
Andrea

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, 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
>

-- 
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
http://goo.gl/NWWaa2 for more information.
==

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054  Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39  339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140702/a8a68ab0/attachment-0002.html>