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

[Stephen Woodbridge]

Dirk,

Thank you for putting a lot of what I have been feeling about this issue 
into words.

Well said,
   -Steve

On 7/1/2014 12:46 PM, Dirk Frigne 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
>