[OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members

Mon Jun 23 23:57:29 PDT 2014

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/23/2014 09:33 PM, b.j.kobben at utwente.nl wrote:
> I am very dissapointed in this whole membership/fees discussion.
> In reading the emails one does not see the international volunteer
> community I would like to think OSGEO is (should be), but it rather
> seems we are dealing with a US-based professional organisation,
> mostly keen on not paying US taxes, and that is not what I want
> OSGEO to become...

Hey Barend,
if it makes you feel any better - I can still see the volunteer driven
OSGeo and have no intention to drop out just because there are ideas
to move to a more consistent way of mapping members. I have been CRO
in two consecutive years and cannot see any advantage in sticking with
the non-system we have had so far. Instead, my hopes are that a fee
based membership can broaden the base we are one. It would make so
many things so much easier.

I also believe that we have grown to a size where we do not have to
fear a hostile takeover so that a lot of the self-referencing and
sustaining mechanisms we put in place to start with are not required
any more.

It would be a pity if others and especially existing OSGeo Charter
Members would feel negatively about the proposed suggestions so I beg
you all to voice your concerns now. And we should make sure that we
pass any changes of this format by the existing Charter Members and
make sure there is a fat majority of support for it. Otherwise we
would betray our principles which is exactly what we tried to prevent
with the existing system in place.

Have fun,
Arnulf

> -- Barend Köbben ITC - University of Twente PO Box 217, 7500AE
> Enschede (The Netherlands) +31-(0)53 4874 253 @barendkobben
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 23-06-14 21:00, "Alex Mandel" <tech_dev at wildintellect.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 06/19/2014 11:58 AM, Peter Baumann wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> good - and important! - discussion! Being Charter Member I am
>>> somewhat concerned:
>>> 
>>> - I am surprised that the common democratic procedure of
>>> election is perceived as creating "dissent".
>> 
>> Well it's somewhat conjecture without public confirmation that
>> someone walked away from OSGeo because they didn't get picked.
>> 
>>> - yes, democracy is expensive, but generally it is considered
>>> worth the effort. - is "lifelong membership" compatible with
>>> community participation?
>> 
>> Nope and we've actually have discussed in the past what the rules
>> should be to weed out charter members who no longer particpate in
>> the community.
>> 
>>> - "Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders" seem to get determined
>>> in a very special, selective way (as compared to standard
>>> election procedures).
>>> 
>>> Altogether, the criteria seem to make OSGeo a self-sustaining
>>> group: insiders will remain insiders for a lifetime, outsiders
>>> will...well, face a hurdle.
>>> 
>>> So the contrary of "open".
>>> 
>>> Just an idea: what about applying the OSGeo incubation
>>> checklist to OSGeo itself to determine feasible procedures?
>>> 
>>> cheers, Peter
>> 
>> I think the discussion of membership fees is timely this year now
>> that we officially have our IRS 501c4 status. Why, well when we
>> were aiming for 501c3 that would have given us donations as tax
>> write offs for US members. Without that incentive to donate,
>> membership now seems like it might be the way to push individuals
>> to donate.
>> 
>> The amount should be researched quite a bit though, factoring in
>> how to reach maximum membership, with lowest overhead (collecting
>> and tracking membership will incur a cost).
>> 
>> Since we don't maintain a huge office, an in print journal, a
>> lobbyist or things like that we should be able to be much lower
>> that other professional societies. I agree it should be relative
>> to country of members, and there probably should be some sharing
>> in places where local chapters exist - or the local chapters
>> trust us to split the money back to them for things they need.
>> 
>> I'd suggest something in the $20-$30 US, students $5-$10. Maybe
>> with a sliding scale like PBS or Kickstarter, where if you
>> voluntarily pay more in a given year you get swag of some sort.
>> 
>> I'm trying to avoid the syndrome (I'm guilty of this) where one
>> pays for membership only in a year when it will get you a
>> discount worth more than the membership for the conference.
>> 
>> I agree with Arnulf that these decisions should probably go to
>> e-vote of all the current charter members, the boards
>> responsibility is to put forward a coherent plan for the vote.
>> Obviously if the board all hates the ideas it should stop there
>> for now.
>> 
>> Thanks, Alex
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing
>> list Discuss at lists.osgeo.org 
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing
> list Discuss at lists.osgeo.org 
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

- -- 
http://metaspatial.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlOpIVgACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b0QzACcC7rA8o1pj79UsPuJ5iKRH9sa
wSYAn0llO89hgdrbGJuHyxGRDhxi1VCI
=TgPf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----