[FOSS4G-Oceania] Governance

[Greg Lauer]

I have added a doc that briefly outlines setting up entities in AU/NZ

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZnexlSlOG_A22owCGv-84oaD6u7YYw527u3nJ8Inqzc/edit?usp=sharing

Please add any comments to the doc

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 1:08 PM Edoardo Neerhut <ed at mapillary.com> wrote:

> Catching up here, but thanks for getting this discussion going everyone.
>
> +1 to the OSGeo Oceania name and the idea of incorporating as an entity
> somewhere in Oceania. I was wary of the overhead, but strong cases have
> been made here and it adds a degree of stability to momentum that we
> generated this year. Regarding OSM, I would need to learn more about how
> some of these international foundations operate, but the US OSM community
> has gone from strength to strength after creating a foundation, albeit an
> independent, OSM focused one.
>
> I think there is enough overlap between the two communities to warrant a
> joint partnership. Perhaps next year we could have a dedicated OSM track
> which would strengthen the feeling that the OSM community is an equal
> partner. In the meantime we could make more of a concerted effort to
> welcome those who are in the community, but not necessarily getting paid
> for their commitment there.
>
> Apologies for missing today's meeting.
>
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 11:35, Greg Lauer <gregory.lauer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Great points and follows on from my previous email. I think the
>> uncertainty in the OSM world at the moment reinforces is in this region
>> taking charge so to speak.
>>
>> I argue the the annual conference would be the centre piece of the
>> proposed entity and that moving forward it needs to be kept ‘in house’. But
>> of course this will only work if we can keep a motivated group of people
>> together.
>>
>> Jonah and I spent some time this week talking a vast range of people in
>> Fiji and there was a real excitement of a regional FOSS4G and OSM
>> organisation. There is even talk of having a conference in the region at
>> some point in the future. I really believe that the proposed entity has a
>> great future ahead.
>>
>> As previously argued I am not in favour of a ‘branch’ of an existing
>> organisation (but I am in favour of strong partnerships with existing
>> organisations). This would dilute our message.
>>
>> My flight boards in 20 min so last email for a day or so....
>>
>> Have a great meeting and weekend!
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On 30 Nov 2018, at 12:56, Martin Tomko <tomkom at unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> I support the organisation, and would like to keep it lean.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am just going to throw in a few valid concerns to address:
>>
>>
>>
>>    - I would love to have OSGEO + OSM communities together, as per the
>>    German model
>>    - For OSGEO/FOSS folks, this is a less organised, more diverse group
>>    than OSM contributors, but also likely less sensitive to some
>>    interventions. I would tread carefully -> see what happened to the OSM
>>    community after the change of licence -  in Australia this was brutal and
>>    not well received. Similar tensions arise now with the increasing
>>    commercialisation of the DB and the role of commercial entities. This is a
>>    sensitive community, and very diverse (From HOT to commercial interests)
>>
>> Lean is good. Some practices in other conference series have two types of
>> committees: Steering committee for the series ( with some rolling
>> membership, let’s say, of past present and future chairs, and an
>> organisation committee in charge of the particular current (with a possible
>> representation of an observer of the next future conference). This allows
>> to manage continuity, a strategy, passing over best practices and finances,
>> etc. http://dna.fernuni-hagen.de/SSTD/regulations.html is an example.
>>
>>    - Some alternatives that also come to mind is to have a “branch”
>>    under one of the existing spatial organisations. I would probably be -1 on
>>    this, but just flagging it here. I note that I have never seen a larger
>>    proportion of professional organisations to active members in any
>>    discipline anywhere in the world than spatial in Aus ☺. I have also
>>    experienced bad results when an existing, large professional organisation
>>    took over an independent conference series. In spatial, this is
>>    unfortunately the case of the famous Spatial Data Handling conference that
>>    was taken over by I believe IGU/ICA, and a few others. The quality went
>>    down, the number of people involved in organisation and prizes up, and the
>>    community broke down. Arguably, the ISPRS and FIG congresses have a much
>>    lesser dynamic to it than a FOSS4G type conference.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *FOSS4G-Oceania <foss4g-oceania-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on
>> behalf of Alex Leith <alexgleith at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Friday, 30 November 2018 at 8:48 am
>> *To: *adam steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com>
>> *Cc: *foss4g-oceania <foss4g-oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [FOSS4G-Oceania] Governance
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey Folks
>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds like there's no downside to starting an org, aside from the whole
>> matter of responsibility for running it!
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding naming, I like OSGeo Oceania.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm tempted by something like "Yearnings for Open Location Oceania" or
>> YOLO for short :-). More seriously, maybe "Open Location Organisation
>> Oceania", which we can shorten to OLO2, which is kind of cool, as we're
>> providing oxygen to open location.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 23:35 adam steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all, great discussion and thanks John/Daniel for starting a governance
>> document.
>>
>>
>>
>> re. incorporating an association - Greg/Daniel mainly: any difficulties
>> forseeable with international currency movement? ie for wellington 2019? I
>> suppose we can follow OSGeo and charge for things in a dominant regional
>> currency.
>>
>>
>>
>> naming: yeah tricky. OSGeo Oceania seems allright to me, but I’m biased
>> and lazy. I’d like to keep the OSM folks involved, a few talks at the event
>> were perfect for bringing less technical folk along for the ride - so it’d
>> be fantastic to have that connection/window open into different worlds.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also trying to cast 10 years into the future and see what’s going to be
>> relevant, I still can’t come up with any better idea (see bias). I’m sure
>> we can find sustaining local sponsors to cover costs; and conferences will
>> be the primary means of income…
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 23:04, Greg Lauer <gregory.lauer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I support Daniels comments. Setting up an entity is similar in each
>> state. I have done this in QLD and NZ. I think an entity is the way to
>> progress.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am on a plane at 12pm (finally going home) so will miss the meeting
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:35 PM Daniel Silk <dwsilk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If for example, incorporating in Victoria:
>> https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/clubs-and-fundraising/incorporated-associations/become-an-incorporated-association/register-as-an-incorporated-association
>>
>>
>>
>> The requirements are:
>>
>> 1. At least 5 members
>>
>> 2. Non-profit
>>
>> 3. We have a name (the hard part!)
>>
>> 4. We have rules (a constitution)
>>
>> 5. We have a purpose
>>
>> 6. We hold a meeting (with 21 days advance notice required) and vote to
>> incorporate
>>
>>
>>
>> Later:
>>
>> 7. We must have an AGM within 18 months of incorporation and then within
>> 5 months of the end of every financial year at which a financial report is
>> tabled and signed off by at least two members
>>
>> 8. We must maintain a list of members including each members name,
>> address and date they became a member
>>
>>
>>
>> Seems like that's about it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that the incorporated associations material for Victoria refers to a
>> "committee", not a "board".
>>
>>
>>
>> ------
>>
>>
>>
>> In regards to governance then, here is my proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> For simplicity, let's incorporate as "OSGeo Oceania" but with a clear
>> purpose statement that supports not just open source geospatial software,
>> but open geospatial data as well. If we are an incorporated association and
>> name one committee member as the primary contact point with the OSM
>> Foundation, then we satisfy all requirements to apply to be an OSMF local
>> chapter.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is similar to FOSSGIS in Germany which is also the local chapter for
>> both OSGeo and OSMF. The Belgian and Italian OSMF local chapters are also
>> organisations that are the local chapters for multiple international
>> organisations.
>>
>>
>>
>> I realise that this may be seen as diluting the importance of the OSM
>> aspect and am happy to be challenged on this. I think it is very important
>> that we continue to work together and I really enjoyed that we had strong
>> open source geospatial, open data and OpenStreetMap aspects to our
>> inaugural conference. I do think that it is hard to come up with a name
>> that cohesively brings all of that together. It would be great to continue
>> to work on that snappier name for next years conference. For the
>> association though, the purpose statement is much more important than the
>> name. OSGeo has already shown that it is keen to support OpenStreetMap so I
>> think we can achieve our broader goals under "OSGeo Oceania".
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:36 PM Alex Leith <alexgleith at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John and others
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not clear yet what the minimum we can do is, in terms of a legal
>> entity. Do others have experience here? I had a quick read here
>> <https://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/Getting-started/In-detail/Registration/Overview-of-legal-structures/>,
>> but determined that I need an adult to help me with the choices!
>>
>>
>>
>> I have served on the board of SSSI, and understand the structures of that
>> organisation, which is a not-for-profit in Australia, and there's a fair
>> bit of governance and documentation. I think the minimum if we had an
>> organisation like that would be a constitution and a board + the conference
>> organising committee for each year.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that creating an entity would be a great thing to achieve, and we
>> certainly have the core to start with, with our enthusiastic committee and
>> successful event. I'm a little hesitant, though, as I see that we can make
>> it work without one... we have a lot of avenues for support, in terms of
>> juggling finances and contractual agreements. SSSI, SIBA, Locate, LINZ,
>> etc...
>>
>>
>>
>> One more comment about the draft document is that I think limiting
>> committees to those that are absolutely essential is important. So if the
>> legal entity needs a board, we have a board, and a conference committee. If
>> it just needs an annual meeting, we have an annual meeting and a conference
>> committee! My $0.02.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:12 John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi committee, time for the most exciting topic of all - governance!
>>
>>
>>
>> Over the last several months, and especially last week, there were a
>> number of conversations among committee members about 'what next', and many
>> of these have touched on the topic of how we organise this committee in the
>> future.
>>
>>
>>
>> I expect there will be quite a few ideas around this, and a range of
>> opinions, so I'd like to kick off a discussion so that we can choose our
>> path and move forward.
>>
>>
>>
>> We've had a productive year of working together, culminating in a
>> successful event. We managed to do this quite informally, using consensus
>> building to foster a shared sense of ownership of the conference. I'm
>> extremely happy with how this group has worked together.
>>
>>
>>
>> I feel we are at an inflection point though, and I don't think we can
>> assume that what worked this year will automatically continue to work. Now
>> that we have people's attention with a successful event and an energised &
>> engaged community, I feel it would be wise to come to more robust terms on
>> how we manage this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Because we need to kick off a new conference planning cycle in the new
>> year, we also need to determine how to bring in new people (importantly,
>> including some New Zealanders), how to appoint a new chair, etc etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> At a bare minimum, I believe our next iteration of governance should
>> include an updated Terms of Reference, outlining processes for managing
>> committee membership, processes for appointing leadership and executive,
>> rules/norms for decision making, and expectations around levels of
>> participation.
>>
>>
>>
>> But there are good arguments to be made for creating a legally-recognised
>> entity:
>>
>>    - it would enable us to manage our own funds when the time is right
>>    (whether we choose to do this immediately or not)
>>    - it would enable us to enter into agreements as a body (Alex and I
>>    had to personally sign our partnership agreement with SSSI, as individuals)
>>    - it normally comes with a well-developed set of rules for governance
>>    that we can adjust to our liking
>>    - I believe that committee members would be somewhat protected from
>>    personal liability
>>    - it would provide a strong signal to the community that there is a
>>    persistent body in place to steward the conference and other initiatives,
>>    and ideally lay out a strong foundation for the long term
>>
>> I have definitely heard people warn against the administrative overhead
>> of setting up a formal entity, but having done this in the past (in Canada
>> mind you), and reading through the docs, I don't see this as especially
>> onerous. But there is more work to do on understanding the details.
>>
>>
>>
>> In any case, we need to figure out how to move on to the next phase. In
>> terms of timing, I think *we should try and come to agreement on a clear
>> path forward within about 2 weeks (14th Dec)*, so that we can begin the
>> new year with purpose and direction.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel and I had a good chat about this stuff this morning, and have
>> started a draft document
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KkUl-qwb2pE5OomHy-0RwKSsXJDOkFx0dpW6Dhfv624/edit>
>> we can use (in addition to this email thread) to focus our efforts.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Your thoughts/questions/ideas/concerns please!*
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> John
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Alex Leith
>>
>> 0419 189 050
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dr. Adam Steer
>>
>> http://spatialised.net
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
>> http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
>>
>> http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0046-7236
>> +61 427 091 712 <+61%20427%20091%20712>
>> skype: adam.d.steer
>>
>> tweet: @adamdsteer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Alex Leith
>>
>> 0419 189 050
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
>> FOSS4G-Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g-oceania/attachments/20181203/1306b51a/attachment-0001.html>