[OSGeo-Discuss] Individual vs. corporate belonging

[Allan Doyle]

I think we should distinguish between individuals (aka members) and  
corporations (aka sponsors?). In FOSS, it's the individual that  
matters. Individuals carry their reputations with them from company  
to company. It makes sense to make the membership be attached to the  
individual.

I can also see mpg's point. We should not make it hard for  
corporations to sponsor OSGeo. We should make it as easy as possible.  
That means that we should learn about what it is that motivates a  
corporation.

I may be off base, but it seems that a corporation has different  
motives for participating in OSGeo and wants to achieve different  
kinds of recognition.

I also think that in a very broad sense, corporations are "customers"  
of FOSS, whereas individuals are "producers" of FOSS. Corporations  
benefit from having high-quality FOSS available when they want to  
build/sell/service a product. Individuals benefit from being able to  
provide services and in the FOSS world this is based on their  
reputations within the FOSS world.

So I don't think that corporations want to have the same relationship  
with OSGeo that individuals do. Thus, we need to provide the right  
kind of relationship. I suspect that both the individuals and the  
corporations want to have some measure of "control" over OSGeo but I  
don't think that means there will be a conflict.

I've been thinking that we should somehow provide the following:

- PSC's for packages - i.e. MapGuide, MapServer, etc.

- PSC's for committees - i.e. open data, core curriculum

- a PSC for individuals who are not members

- a PSC for corporations who are sponsors

Then there should maybe be some formula for board composition based  
on the number of PSCs. Then it's a matter of adjusting some weighting  
factors. Perhaps the Individuals and Corporations should each get one  
seat. Then the rest of the seats are done by vote of the members.

One drawback of that is that each corporation's influence is diluted  
each time a new corporation is recruited. So maybe there should be  
some way of bumping up the board seats on some kind of stepwise  
basis. 1-5 corporations - 1 board seat. 5-10 corporations, 2 board  
seats. Etc. The board grows over time. Maybe there's a cap on board  
size and when that cap is hit, then the weighting gets recalculated.

Maybe corporations should be able to contribute either direct cash,  
or labor. Since we're dealing in FOSS, there's clearly no in-kind  
software donations so that won't be an issue. Maybe there can be  
service donations. Legal, servers, etc.

I'm not so hung up on the particular scheme. But consider that we  
should make corporations think they have a voice, and they have a  
means of benefiting from participating.

	Allan

On Feb 17, 2006, at 17:38, Gary Lang wrote:

> I think this a reasonable approach.
>
>
>
> From: Michael P. Gerlek [mailto:mpg at lizardtech.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 7:15 AM
> To: discuss at mail.osgeo.org
> Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] Individual vs. corporate belonging
>
> We currently define "member" as an "individual", not a "company" or  
> other group.  Once the board and 45-membership is fully  
> constituted, I would like to consider the following (hypothetical!)  
> situation:
>
> Let us imagine LizardTech has paid my way to go to the Chicago  
> meeting, given me the time to follow this mailing list, to lurk on  
> #osgeo, and indeed let us say even donated $X directly to the  
> foundation to promote open source efforts.
> Let us then imagine that LizardTech and I part ways for one reason  
> or another.
>
> This leaves LizardTech without a membership representative looking  
> after their "investment" into OSGeo.  If our ultimate membership- 
> nomination-and-acceptance process is even moderately onerous,  
> should LizardTech in this case be given some sort of waiver to fast- 
> track a new person into the foundation?
>
> (Contrariwise, note that I would still get to be a member, under  
> the guise of my hypothetical new employer.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -mpg
>
>

-- 
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
adoyle at eogeo.org