[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo Membership (was Re: [Board] motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter membership more exclusive)
jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net
Wed Jun 24 11:36:39 PDT 2015
What’s the offensive part? I read some teasing statements in Arnulf’s triggering style. And in fact, I think it makes perfect sense that we move to a more regular membership of OSGeo where people even pay a small membership fee to the foundation. Older members that loose interest in OSGeo, change their lives, do other things, will smoothly leave OSGeo while new ones can quickly join and come to action. Even if they are not yet well known within OSGeo.
> On 24 jun. 2015, at 20:20, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
> Hi Arnulf,
> I don't see the need to become offensive to make your point.
> Since you mention a "do-ocracy", and you have pointed out clearly what you believe must and must not happen, are you willing to champion the changes that you feel are needed?
> We are, as always, "hiring" champions.
> On 2015-06-24 2:28 PM, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> On 22.06.2015 21:49, Jorge Sanz wrote:
>>> 2015-06-22 21:14 GMT+02:00 Vasile Craciunescu <vasile at geo-spatial.org>:
>>>> Sure, actually I was about to ask the board if such a survey make sense
>>>> before the elections and then to shape up the questions together.
>>> Looking at recent discussions, it makes a lot of sense and it's great
>>> that we finally start using this to get our CMs opinions in an
>>> organized manner. Thanks Vasile for putting the wheel on moving.
>> now things are starting to make sense. What we really need is a regular
>> OSGeo membership that can be polled and asked and that can vote. It
>> should not be tied to an annual election and certainly should not be
>> tied to a self pollinating "Charter Membership".
>> If you go to the roots of the term "Charter Member"  it means "those
>> who were there when things started". The founders . We misused this
>> term in the past years to emulate something completely different, namely
>> the representation of a vibrant and growing and caring community of
>> spatially interested IT people. Instead of trying to implement rules and
>> conducts and election thresholds and fearing a hostile take over we
>> should strive to at last put a regular membership in place. It will
>> require us to ask people for some personal information (which we have to
>> keep private) to be able to authenticate them. OSGeo was never really
>> set up to do this kind of adminstrivia which is why we shied away and
>> tried to misuse the Charter Member role for this purpose. To create
>> something that might resemble a somewhat democratic election. They are
>> not ever. We are self pollinating from an arbitrary initial group. With
>> the number of Charter Members growing there will be more and more people
>> who don't know each other and will likely never meet in person. "Charter
>> Member" is simply the wrong tool for what we are really trying to achieve.
>> Once we have regular membership these issues go away. Then OSGeo will be
>> really open for anybody. Any time, not just once a year and not for a
>> limited number of people only. Then we can have real elections and polls
>> that make sense. People who excel through their commitment, knowledge
>> and initiative will be elected into the board . Those who care about
>> their membership will elect the board, not some dreary old Charter
>> Members from a decade ago (no offense meant, haha).
>> While we are at it we could even ask for a low annual membership fee
>> (remember Paul suggesting the Burger Index to find a somewhat fair
>> global price tag?). This would make authentication a lot easier and
>> demonstrate some kind of commitment from the new member. Can you picture
>> hundreds of people becoming regular members, giving personal information
>> and transfer (even some small amount of) money just to "take over"
>> OSGeo? Come off it.
>> Apart from this there is a Charter. It is the DNA of OSGeo and I see no
>> reason why it should be fundamentally changed.
>> There will be more amendments and bylaws and in dog's name even a CoCk.
>> But there will be no fundamental changing of the Charter (support Open
>> Source Geospatial, bla, bla). This is why it is a charter. It has been
>> written down on paper to be there for everybody to read. Not to change it.
>> Oh, by the way - where is our Charter? My guess is we don't even have
>> one. All we have is this: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Bylaws
>> Have fun,
>>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter
>>  http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Charter_Members
>>  http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Do-ocracy
>> - --
>> Exploring Boredom
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Discuss