[OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

[Jim Klassen]

I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before
OSGeo existed.  I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated
discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take. 
The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very
important to me.

However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly
the survey has me confused as to how I should respond.

For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be
improved?  Where are the results of this survey going?  Does this survey
count as an official vote(s)?

On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
> Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,
>
> Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet
> access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as
> Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on
> the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected
> that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board
> mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a
> dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to
> comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our
> Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please
> keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members
> and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills.
>
> Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method
> to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many
> years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new
> proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to
> include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo
> membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really
> flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the "board" and
> "discuss" mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different
> opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their
> ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the
> survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and
> not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question
> based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful
> for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization
> on the right track.
>
> Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!
> Vasile
>
> PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of
> them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.
>
> On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
>> Hi Vassile,
>>
>> This survey appears to be flawed.
>>
>> I applaud your efforts to bring this issue to a head, but I'm not
>> convinced
>> that we'll get valid results from the survey.
>>
>>
>> In my case:
>>
>> I believe that there should be open membership for any interested,
>> perhaps
>> with a membership fee.
>>
>> I also see the value of recognising key contributors voted through some
>> meritocracy process as the current Charter Membership allows, with this
>> group having a voting responsibility. This is in essence not very
>> different
>> from the concept of a 'committers' group within an open source
>> project. I
>> don't really care if the name 'Charter Membership' is changed.
>>
>>
>> However the survey appears to lead people into a binary situation where
>> they believe in 'open' or 'closed' with 'closed' apparently assigned to
>> those favouring 'Charter Membership'.
>>
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> I'd like to vote NO to 'Should OSGeo move from the actual elected
>> Charter
>> member model to an (open) regular membership?'
>>
>> But, YES to 'If you agree with the OSGeo regular membership, do you also
>> agree with a low annual membership fee?'
>>
>> However, I'm precluded from doing so, because I answered NO to Q1.
>>
>> For Question 4, I would like to answer both:
>>
>> - YES for Open, in the context that everyone interested should be
>> able to
>> participate in discussions and the OSGeo Community (perhaps having
>> paid a
>> membership fee); and
>>
>> - YES for 'Closed', in the context of key votes being subject to the
>> equivalent of a 'Committers' list where people have been voted in
>> through
>> some meritocracy process.
>>
>> - However, I can only choose one or the other!
>>
>>
>> I haven't read the remaining questions at this stage, given the flawed
>> questions at the beginning.
>>
>>
>>
>> I apologise if you had sent this out for review earlier. I have not been
>> following this debate closely as this type of membership noise pops
>> up on a
>> regular basis.
>>
>> However, when this proceeds to a vote of the OSGeo Charter membership, I
>> need to register a comment.
>>
>>
>> For consideration.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Vasile Crăciunescu <cro at osgeo.org>
>>> Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu <cro at osgeo.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, 30 July 2015 23:52
>>> To: Bruce Bannerman <>
>>> Subject: Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership
>>> consultations
>>>
>>> Dear Bruce,
>>>
>>> As an existing OSGeo Charter Member, you have been invited to
>>> participate
>>> in the 2015 OSGeo membership consultations.
>>>
>>> To participate, please click on the link below.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Vasile ()
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>