[OSGeo-Discuss] Individual vs. corporate belonging

[Frank Warmerdam]

Allan Doyle wrote:
> 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.

Allan,

I certainly agree that corporations and individuals are likely to
want different things out of the foundation and it's projects.  I'm
not sure I understand what will be primary motivations for corporations
(well organizations, could include governments, NGOs, etc).  I can
imagine organizations using foundation projects would want:

  o Some input on technical direction.  ie. new features
  o Some assurance that the packages they depend on will continue
    to improve and that reasonable quality standards will be applied.
  o The ability to get critical issues for themselves addressed,
    whether it is though contractors, the foundation or their own
    staff.  But that the foundation or PMCs not unreasonable frustrate
    their ability to solve problems.
  o Some assurance that the technology won't get "pulled out from under
    them".  Mostly I think this means avoiding disruptive license
    changes, or legal uncertainty about the project code.
  o Garner some PR benefit from association, and conversely avoid PR
    black-eyes.  ie. the foundation shouldn't be taking political or
    PR positions that directly embarrass them.

However, I am quite interested in what representatives of companies
and other organizations see as interests they see a need to protect.
Stake holder organizations include:

  o Integrators and consultants who build solutions including
    foundation technologies (folks like DM Solutions, CCGIS, etc)
  o Companies selling proprietary software built in part on foundation
    software. (ie. Safe Software, Autodesk, Lizardtech)
  o End user organizations using foundation software for geospatial
    applications.  (ie. NRCan, UN FAO, Ecotrust(NGO)).
  o Educational institutions using foundation software for teaching
    and research projects.

For companies that depend heavily on a project, I think the best
way to ensure continued influence is to support more than one
developer to contribute to the point where they are committers or
even PMC members.  That way even if they lose one, they will still
have an oar in.

> 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.

The idea of having some board members selected by corporate supporters
was raised at me, and seems to have mostly been shot down.  The model
that seems to have been widely accepted is that the board is elected
by members, and that members are individuals that are contributors
to open source geospatial software (in a fairly broadly defined way).
If we are going to change this core part of our governance model, we
will need a pretty strong mandate.  It isn't an avenue I am keen on
re-opening.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent