[OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] acknowledging both sponsors vs participants

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Sat Nov 21 12:19:08 PST 2015

<expanding this conversation to the OSGeo Discuss list>

Hi Jody,
You make valid points about different levels of contribution.
They are equally valid for the OSGeo-Advocate page too.
My key point is that we should use consistent taxonomy (terms) between 
different lists, so that it is easy for people to mix and match 
information between different sources. If need be, we potentially should 
be updating the terms used on the OSGeo-Advocate list to match terms 
used for OSGeo Sponsorship.

I think that your struggle identifying sponsorship levels is probably 
systematic of something we have not fully acknowledged.

*Namely, we within Open Source communities such as OSGeo value people's 
time more than we value money.*

OSGeo people and companies contribute huge amounts of time into OSGeo 
projects, which is significantly more valuable to us than financial 
sponsorship. This time is usually given freely by individuals, from 
their spare time, or given freely by companies, who have worked out a 
way to give code back to open source code bases as part of paid work.

A typical OSGeo volunteer developer gives ~ $50,000 worth of their time 
per year to OSGeo.
(10 hrs/wk) * (50 wks/yr )* ($100/hr) = $50,000 p.a.

I'd extend this further to suggest that we are a meritocracy, and we 
trade on reputation. Reputation is earned through a contribution of both 
time and the value of the advice given.

What we are really looking for when discussing sponsorship levels is a 
way to describe the reputation of our members to those external to OSGeo.

It doesn't feel quite right that a company can buy reputation (through 
sponsorship), and in particular, get greater acknowledgement and 
opportunities than someone who has worked hard and built a personal 
reputation based on merit within the community.

With brings us back to the question of:
Do we want to be a low capital or high capital organisation?

Low capital = we trade on time and reputation, without much money 
changing hands. For the most part, finances are handled externally to 
OSGeo. I think this aligns with our natural DNA.

High capital = first we chase sponsorship, then we hire people into paid 
positions. It means we need to spend quite a bit of time selling instead 
of developing, but it means we could pay for things like travel of key 
staff. It is a commercial business model, more closely aligned with how 
LocationTech has been set up.

Both work. Both have advantages, but you can't have the best of both no 

On 22/11/2015 4:03 am, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Thanks for the archive link, does not quite capture the level of 
> project commitment I was trying to capture. There is a vast difference 
> between a contributor and committer. There is an equally vast 
> difference between a committer and a maintainer (who has made an 
> ongoing time commitment).
> For recognizing organizations we are focused o those who are providing 
> an ongoing commitment. Perhaps it would be best not to have levels for 
> this one and just list organizations who have made such a statement.
> If anyone has other ideas here it would be great, we are trying to 
> figure out a way to acknowledge participating organizations based on 
> time (rather than just sponsorship which relies on money - and can be 
> an unjust measurement around the world ). 

On 21/11/2015 7:59 pm, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Hi Jody,
> Yes, I've raised a ticket with the OSGeo SAC to look into it.
> Seems the page is too big, or there is something about the syntax on 
> the page which doesn't work with the upgraded osgeo wiki.
> In the meantime, try the archive page here:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20150302070905/http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate#Understanding_OSGeo_roles
> On 21/11/2015 6:43 pm, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> The link you provided does respond? Is it correct ..
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>> On 20 November 2015 at 02:16, Cameron Shorter 
>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     On 20/11/2015 1:58 am, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>         - Leadership - project steering committee or similar
>>         responsible for decision making
>>         - Maintainer - module maintainer, responsible for code
>>         reviews, release, build server or some other aspect of
>>         project health and happiness.
>>         - Committer - obtained commit permission on a project
>>         - Contributor - submitted functionality or fix that passed
>>         code review and was included in a release
>>     Hi Jody,
>>     When selecting roles, I suggest aligning with the terms used by
>>     the OSGeo Advocate page:
>>     https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate#Understanding_OSGeo_roles
>>     -- 
>>     Cameron Shorter,
>>     Software and Data Solutions Manager
>>     LISAsoft
>>     Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>>     26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>>     P +61 2 9009 5000 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>,  W
>>     www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Board mailing list
>>     Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> -- 
> Cameron Shorter,
> Software and Data Solutions Manager
> LISAsoft
> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
> P +61 2 9009 5000,  Wwww.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20151122/6e0f81ce/attachment.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list