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

Thu Jul 10 10:20:58 PDT 2014

Over the past weeks I've been busy with a) my Northwest-European holiday and b) watching the Fifa World Cup, so this is -a bit late- my entrance in this discussion.
(for some reason my this message didn't reach this list earlier this week, I'll give it a second try)

I think most of us recognize and agree to Dirk's feelings, thoughts and words. 
Having said so, I'd also to recall Dave Patton's observation, which I think gives a key to use this discussion to bring the OSGeo.org a step forward.

Dave suggested to separate three issues:
A) The Charter Member process.
My 2 eurocents: for now we can advance with the election, for next year I'd like to see a discussion about both the role of the Charter Membership and a discussion about the CM-election process. Preferably in that order.

B) Fees and memberships & C) Fundraising.
Once again my 2 eurocents: Assuming that fees are not primarily meant to keep people out of OSGeo.org, I would suggest to have a discussion about the need for fundraising (and its extent) first, and next a discussion about methods for fundraising (of which paid membership is just one possibility. An annual fee for the local chapters is another).

And perhaps we could add a fourth issue D: the relationship between OSGeo.org, the projects and the local chapters. 
After being involved in the Dutch local chapter (Dutch as in "the Dutch language", not as "from the Netherlands") over the last 2.5 years, of which the last 11 months as chair of the Dutch board, I notice that the relationship between our local chapter and the OSGeo.org board is rather thin, even though one of the OSGeo.org board members (Bart) is Dutch-speaking. 
This might influence the discussion about the role of the Charter Members as well; I can imagine a set-up in which the Charter Membership is less personal based, but more like a "House of Representatives" in which each member represents a local chapter or a OSGeo project. Possibly supplemented with a few "independent" members.

I therefore like to ask to board to organize these discussion in the next few months. 
The Foss4G conference (september) can be a help in scoping and starting these 3 of 4 discussions, so they can be finished by the end of the year, in which case the Charter Member elections 2015 can take place in a normal manner, without fuzz about the election process (which makes the CRO 2015 an easy job, volunteers anyone?)

greetings from the LowLands,

Gert-Jan
chairman OSGeo.nl

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] Namens Jeff McKenna
Verzonden: zaterdag 5 juli 2014 11:54
Aan: discuss at lists.osgeo.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)

Hi Dirk,

Several people have told me privately how impressed they were with your thoughts on this issue; I myself am not surprised to hear this about you, as you've impressed me with your vision before.  In fact I hope you consider joining the OSGeo Board for this next term, we really need your leadership.  I hope someone nominates you.

-jeff

On 2014-07-03, 12:13 PM, Dirk Frigne wrote:
> Mateusz,
> 
> [and others],
> 
> thanks for your reaction,
> 
> On 02-07-14 11:44, Mateusz Łoskot wrote:
>> On 1 July 2014 18:46, Dirk Frigne <dirk.frigne at geosparc.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> 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) [...] "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] [...] 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.
>>> [...]
>>> The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the 
>>> common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today.
>> Dirk,
>>
>> You've captured the essence well and it fits my personal point of 
>> view at OSGeo too.
>> You've also given some good ideas to work on, on how to move about 
>> the mixture of expectations within the community.
>>
>> We may need to be careful to not to divide the community to classes 
>> of members, professionals and non-professionals. It may turn into a 
>> very similar issue as paying and non-paying members.
> I agree with you.
> What I tried to express with next phrase:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Is the following:
> 
> We are all members of one community, and as such are we are all acting 
> as users, in the broadest sense.
> However, belonging to the community gives each member a return, also 
> in the broadest sense.
> (f.e. because of the simple principle you will not become a member if 
> there is no return).
>  
> What is important in my view, and I think many of us agree with that 
> (counting the positive reactions on my reply [2]), this return is not 
> about money, but in many aspects much more valuable. (I'll come to 
> that in the reply to Bruce [3] I am preparing).
> 
> I observe that many (if not all) members of our community have 
> different roles in life. I tried to simplify these roles into 4 
> categories to use the image of Deoxyribonucleic acid ( *DNA* ), where 
> 4 nucleotides form the kernel of all known living organisms. The only 
> thing I tried to express was that it should be the members that 
> benefit in these different roles in life, using tools, techniques, 
> software or know how they share in the community should have the 
> [*not* mandatory]  respect to donate to the community they believe is valuable.
> 
> (valuable not to be expressed in $$ but real *value* such as:
>  - having qualities worthy of respect, admiration, or esteem: a 
> valuable friend.
>  - of considerable use, service, or importance: valuable information.
> )[4]
> 
> Why? Because they get the opportunity to benefit from the common 
> assets of the community in whatever aspect, and get the possibility to 
> return some of these benefits for the needs of the community.
> Important is that there is no guarantee what is done with what you 
> return, just like [many] members commit time, code or whatever without 
> expecting immediate return.
> 
> Hope this makes it more clear.
> 
>>  
>>
>> Thanks for your writing.
>>
>> Best regards,
> You're welcome,
> 
> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities
>  
> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-July/013030.html
> [3] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-July/013043.html
> [4] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valuable ; meaning 2. and 3.
> 

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss