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

Dan Ames dan.ames at byu.edu
Mon Aug 3 11:56:56 PDT 2015 

Count me has one who has "awoken". The survey has spawned an interesting
discussion. I hope to see the results shared at some point, even if not
everyone has participated. Maybe a threshold of charter member
participation should be met before the results are shared? This of course
would just be for information sake given that there are clearly issues with
the survey causing some not to participate as Frank has pointed out. - Dan

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:29 AM Milo van der Linden <milo at dogodigi.net>
wrote:

> +1 Frank's statement
>
> It is a great summary and I also want to compliment OSGeo on maintaining
> diversity in Board and Officers both in country of origin and companies
> people work for in all these years, it is an organization I am proud to be
> a humble little part of.
>
> If there is something that I think could be better in the future it might
> be:
> - More women present in the board although this should go naturally and
> not forced
> - broader representation for Asia and Africa, but again, this should grow
> organic
>
> But that is just my opinion and I feel in no way privileged to tell others
> what to do.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Milo
> On Aug 3, 2015 6:44 PM, "Stephen Woodbridge" <woodbri at swoodbridge.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 Frank's statement is exactly what I would like to see also.
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>> On 8/3/2015 12:39 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, I also do not feel comfortable with completing
>>> the survey as it is currently structured as the structure forces me to
>>> give answers that don't really represent my views.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth I am in favor of:
>>>   - a modest number of charter members using something like the current
>>> process
>>>   - open membership
>>>   - no manditory membership fees
>>>   - make every effort to treat regular members the same as charter
>>> members except for the minimum voting stuff required to be legally
>>> distinct.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jim Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150803/eb5a78a4/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list