[OSGeo Oceania] [Aus-NZ-QGIS-group] Community consultation: OO Org QGIS Special Interest Group Charter

Sat Dec 5 21:41:42 PST 2020

Hi All,

Thanks for the discussion on the QGIS SIG proposed charter so far.

I have worked in the comments on dealing with a conflict of interest,
voting (minimum number of voters), and membership tiers. Also a few
formatting changes e.g. I moved the membership section higher up in the
document.

I suspect the membership tiers may need some further discussion, these were
the tiers loosely discussed by our SIG proposers very early on (not the
price but the distinction - prices are placeholders at the moment), we
could also look at the pricing of the Swiss User group for guidance
<https://www.qgis.ch/en/association/membership-application>. However, again
this is all open for your input and feedback.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lrewntrC0N1r6mfZdo1AdPhe2qTEaN5hDA2pcL0mrvI/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks
Andrew

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 8:20 AM Andrew Jeffrey <aljeffrey83 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for the discussion and input so far.
>
> I see there are some comments on the charter itself as well which is
> great, we'll try and address each of those in the document and I believe
> you can see the history/resoltion of these in the "comment history" in the
> doc itself. What I can see from the initial feedback is that the
> "membership" or definition of needs more detail and we need to address the
> potential for "conflicts of interest" when raising and voting on motions.
>
> @adam - if you don't mind I will add your example text for dealing with
> conflicts of interest from the previous email verbatim as a starting point
> and evolve it from there.
>
> Also, remember if you want to have some editing input on the charter reach
> out and I can add you as an editor to the document.
>
> Thanks
> Andrew
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:48 PM Emma Hain <emmahain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Emma Hain
>>
>> On 30 Nov 2020, at 17:03, Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com> wrote:
>>
>> https://www.qgis.ch/en/association/membership-application
>>
>>
>> Cheers - Phil,
>> On the road with his iPad
>>
>> On 30 Nov 2020, at 5:30 pm, Emma Hain <emmahain at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey All
>> I’m with the essence of what Martin put forward as well as Nathan. If
>> those that can do pool together funds under the SIG then we can get the
>> tools that Oceania needs.
>> Is there a link to the Swiss Qgis funding model?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Emma Hain
>>
>> On 30 Nov 2020, at 13:51, Martin Tomko <tomkom at unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I just chip in, to elaborate on what I was thinking about when drafting
>> the SIG guidelines.
>>
>>
>>
>> The overall model, for me, was that of the ACM SIGs, which work well (
>> some), or less well ( others), but do not impact on each other. An OO
>> member can be member of multiple SIGs, or none. Some may organise
>> hackatons, mapping parties, microconferences, some may not. Some may even
>> propose ( and successfully populate and run) a stream at a FOSS4G SOTM
>> conference (that would be awesome). They may help set the program for the
>> conference, etc, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> The level of activity, and the financial resources they may have
>> available will differ, and it is not up to the OO (board) to dictate, as
>> long as they do not encroach on the freedom of others to have their own
>> activities, do not place undue burden on the OO itself (run by volunteers,
>> you do not want to process hundreds of micro payments, etc, I would say),
>> or have multiple SIGs overlapping in scope.
>>
>>
>>
>> Re fees. I would have assumed that most will be free, BUT the ability to
>> levy a membership[ fee was left there exactly to satisfy the need for
>> supporting a more intensive activity that is not “event” based. So, if the
>> QGIS SIG decides to print a monthly SIG magazine and provide it as a
>> membership service to the SIG, sure, why not, levy a membership fee. Or a
>> website, online course, or similar.
>>
>>
>>
>> Broader membership by organisations is starting to go borderline, to what
>> Adam noted. Is this something where the overall interests of the
>> organisation clash with the SIG? I would suggest let’s try this, and
>> decide, as we go. If the burden by SIGS or the internal competition is too
>> much ( we lose FOS4G SOTM sponsors to the SIG), then this will need to be
>> addressed. This is I believe the main concern, but we are not there.
>>
>>
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Oceania <oceania-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
>> *Date: *Monday, 30 November 2020 at 1:51 pm
>> *To: *Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
>> *Cc: *QGIS Australia User Group <
>> australian-qgis-user-group at googlegroups.com>, OSgeo - Oceania <
>> oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [OSGeo Oceania] [Aus-NZ-QGIS-group] Community
>> consultation: OO Org QGIS Special Interest Group Charter
>>
>> Hey Cameron
>>
>>
>>
>> The issue of membership fees is only for the QGIS special interest group.
>> The OSGeo Oceania membership will always be zero, or near zero cost.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll let the QGIS folks speak for themselves, but they're talking about
>> being able to pool money to fund specific activities, and if people are
>> willing to pay for a subscription to regularly contribute, and they call it
>> a membership of that QGIS SIG, that's all good, I say!
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 13:33, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The question of membership fees pops up every few years with arguments
>> for and against.
>>
>> I summarized a bunch of threads in the OSGeo community back when I was on
>> the OSGeo board in:
>> http://cameronshorter.blogspot.com/2013/03/osgeo-board-priorities.html
>> .There may be some points in there which you can reuse.
>>
>>
>> OSGeo as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation
>>
>> Should OSGeo act as a high capital or low capital organisation? I.e.,
>> should OSGeo dedicate energy to collecting sponsorship and then passing out
>> these funds to worthy OSGeo causes.
>> While initially it seems attractive to have OSGeo woo sponsors, because
>> we would all love to have more money to throw at worthy OSGeo goals, the
>> reality is that chasing money is hard work. And someone who can chase OSGeo
>> sponsorship is likely conflicted with chasing sponsorship for their
>> particular workplace. So in practice, to be effective in chasing
>> sponsorship, OSGeo will probably need to hire someone specifically for the
>> role. OSGeo would then need to raise at least enough to cover wages, and
>> then quite a bit more if the sponsorship path is to create extra value.
>> This high capital path is how the Eclipse foundation is set up, and how
>> LocationTech propose to organise themselves. It is the path that OSGeo
>> started following when founded under the umbrella of Autodesk.
>> However, over the last seven years, OSGeo has slowly evolved toward a low
>> capital volunteer focused organisation. Our overheads are very low, which
>> means we waste very little of our volunteer labour and capital on the time
>> consuming task of chasing and managing money. Consequently, any money we do
>> receive (from conference windfalls or sponsorship) goes a long way - as it
>> doesn't get eaten up by high overheads. As discussed and agreed by the
>> board, this low capital path is something that is working very well for us,
>> and is the path we should continue to follow.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 05:21, Adam Steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Thanks Andrew for addressing all the questions people have. Responding
>> to your reply to my questions:
>>
>> - OK about sponsorships and so on, I can see that the QGIS SIG could
>> choose to align events with FOSS4G SotM Oceania editions, thereby
>> really streamlining logistics and effort and working with the whole
>> community
>>
>> - conflict of interest: really hard in a community where everyone
>> knows each other - my science community is the same, anonymous reviews
>> are almost impossible! I think yes, recusing people from decision
>> making is a great step. I also think it's unrealistic to make a
>> blanket statement that fits all cases. I think the best approach might
>> be to handle each case as it comes, and do it transparently. To make a
>> concrete suggestion - and feel free to disagree - the charter could
>> contain a statement  like 'Conflicts of interest, real or perceived,
>> will be handled in accordance with our code of conduct. This means
>> recusing relevant parties from decision making as early as possible in
>> the process, and discussing the matter openly with our community. In
>> some cases, we may have to proceed by funding people who make
>> decisions about where to apply funds. This is a function of a small
>> and close knit community, and will always be discussed openly with the
>> community first.'
>>
>> There are probably heaps of loopholes in that, and impossible to close
>> them all - so the short version is to write exactly what you wrote in
>> reply: 'we will be ethical, and will resist being a funding pipeline
>> to particular people or companies'. The community has to step up to
>> make that always true.
>>
>> I have no thoughts to add to John's about SIG membership, except I
>> really like that you're thinking about how to manage it in an
>> inclusive fashion.
>>
>> I do have an opinion about creating sub-SIGS though - in my science
>> career I've seen multiple disciplines discover the same tooling a few
>> times. So my hot take is 'avoid having discipline-specific subgroups',
>> way better to let disciplinary cross-fertilisation happen ;)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 at 09:39, Andrew Jeffrey <aljeffrey83 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > No problems, with everything going on post conference, elections, and
>> the upcoming holiday period we may need to leave this open for comment for
>> a little longer than normal. Happy to go with what people feel is needed
>> here.
>> >
>> > John, regarding your thoughts on the membership I agree 100%, the
>> charter at the moment has a sentence stating the SIG should be "providing
>> membership avenues for people that may not be in a financial position to
>> pay a fee" perhaps we need more clarity around membership and what it
>> involves in the charter? To be clear, my thoughts are that keeping in the
>> spirit of OO the SIG should be available to everyone and no one should be
>> excluded from participating, on reflection the term "membership" might come
>> across as prohibitive. I'm sure we'll come up with something acceptable
>> through conversation here.
>> >
>> > For context though it may be helpful to explain the intent behind the
>> idea of a "membership". The issues it aims to address are below:
>> >
>> > There is some difficulty associated with organisations giving a
>> "donation", but purchasing something like a "membership" to a professional
>> user group seems to be acceptable and is easier justified in some
>> procurement processes.
>> > For individuals donating to QGIS helps the project but has little
>> influence on their QGIS experience, also individuals on the QGIS list have
>> indicated trouble participating in crowdfunding campaigns due to high
>> minimum pledges.
>> >
>> > A QGIS SIG would allow us to receive money from interested parties
>> wanting to support QGIS in our region, pool the funds and then spend as the
>> SIG sees fit. The best part is the money will be spent on the items scoped
>> in our charter which is again relevant to users in our region. For lack of
>> a better term think of it as a "co-op" for the donations alot of us already
>> make on an ad-hoc basis. Ideally we would be looking to get a majority of
>> the membership from organisations that we know use QGIS to support a bulk
>> of this activity, and then people willing to make a personal contribution
>> would then add to that. Then if people can't make a personal contribution
>> that is also fine because they can assist in other ways.
>> >
>> > That was the idea in justifying a membership fee. We will need to offer
>> something in return, for individuals that will be the professional network
>> and for organisations that will be recognition at this early stage but as
>> we progress this may evolve.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 3:57 PM John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Andrew, thanks a lot for continuing to push this forward. It has been
>> a couple of months since I last looked at this, and I haven't really had a
>> detailed look at the SIG concept yet.
>> >>
>> >> I'm 'out of the office' for the next few days, but would be happy to
>> join in this discussion when I get back, and have a proper chance to
>> refresh my memory and get up to speed on SIGs.
>> >>
>> >> One brief thought, it feels like it would be good to consider a free
>> (or very inexpensive) tier of membership. I suspect many of us can't
>> justify (or can't afford) to spend much, but could contribute in other ways.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> John
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, 9:46 am Andrew Jeffrey, <aljeffrey83 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Adam,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for the feedback.
>> >>>
>> >>> I agree the SIG shouldn't bring about any duplication of the
>> processes that the OO currently does. A SIG as defined in the guidelines
>> should be "enabling OSGeo Oceania members to interact, share knowledge,
>> organise events, and collaborate on a selected, targeted topic within the
>> scope of OSGeo Oceania". So a SIG should be complementary to the OO
>> function and allow the interested community members to drive engagement in
>> that area without the OO board having to do it all. Like you say though,
>> open communication between the SIG and the OO board is key in making sure
>> there is no overlap being introduced. Also to be clear the SIG isn’t
>> seeking “sponsorship” as such but we do want to be able to collect a
>> membership fee for people/orgs wanting to be involved, allowing them to
>> fund items that maybe other OO members don’t see as important. I don’t see
>> this taking away from conference sponsorship and this idea will ultimately
>> sink or swim depending on whether the SIG members have an appetite to fund
>> the items in our scope.
>> >>>
>> >>> As for the conflict of interest, to be honest I don't know the answer
>> in regards to how that should be dealt with. I think we need to add
>> something in the charter, would removing those people from the proposal and
>> voting process be enough? How does OO deal with this? I don’t want to rule
>> local devs out of working on this because they belong to the group, but we
>> also don’t want to become the entry point to company XYZ.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for the feedback.
>> >>>
>> >>> Andrew
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 7:35 AM Adam Steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hey Andrew and all the QGIS SIG proposers
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks, I think this is a perfect use of OSGeo Oceania as a backing
>> >>>> organisation :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My only reservation with any SIG proposal is that effort isn't
>> >>>> duplicated about events and marketing, and also that a funding from a
>> >>>> small pool of interested parties (relative to other parts of the
>> >>>> world) is able to be effectively spread among the whole community.
>> For
>> >>>> an example it would be a bit awry to see a SIG gather a heap of
>> >>>> funding at the expense of conference sponsorships. I guess in that
>> >>>> case the SIG could also sponsor conferences? This goes the other way
>> >>>> too - the existence of a well connected SIG makes it easier for OO to
>> >>>> fund a QGIS feature (for example) if it decides to do so.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think clear, constant and open communication between OO and the SIG
>> >>>> will make those concerns go away.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In writing this I did work my thoughts through to  a serious
>> question:
>> >>>> How will the SIG deal with conflicts of interest? A stated aim of the
>> >>>> SIG is to fund development, what will the SIG do if all the key QGIS
>> >>>> developers in the region are also in the group of people making
>> >>>> decisions about buying developer time?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My only comment on the charter itself is that if you want, you can
>> >>>> link to the existing Berlin Code of Conduct:
>> >>>> https://berlincodeofconduct.org/ - with which the upcoming OO CoC
>> >>>> should be 100% compatible.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Adam
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 04:37, Andrew Jeffrey <aljeffrey83 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Hi All,
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > The OSGeo Oceania board has approved an initiative for members to
>> form Special Interest Groups (SIGs) within the OO community.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > A SIG is a way for community members to collaborate around common
>> interests which in this case is QGIS.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > In establishing a SIG, the OO board requires that the group
>> proposing the SIG put forward a charter which outlines the Aim and Scope
>> under which the SIG will operate.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Myself, Emma Hain, John Bryant, Nathan Woodrow and Nyall Dawson
>> would like to start a QGIS SIG which can be used to benefit QGIS users in
>> our community. To get things started we have come up with a charter that we
>> would like to make available for community consultation. As this charter
>> currently reflects our input we would like to put this out for discussion
>> to see if what we are proposing is on the right path for the community. At
>> the moment everyone with the link below has "comment" permissions, but
>> "edit" permissions can be granted on request if you would like to get more
>> involved and you're welcome to do so.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lrewntrC0N1r6mfZdo1AdPhe2qTEaN5hDA2pcL0mrvI/edit?usp=sharing
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I also just want to be upfront that this SIG is proposing that
>> there be a membership fee associated with the group. The funds raised by
>> the membership will be stored with the OO org and then used by the SIG on
>> items as scoped out in the charter. The idea with the membership is not to
>> "make money" but to pool our small contributions to give us better "buying
>> power" for lack of a better term. As a SIG within the OO org we can
>> participate in crowdfunding campaigns, engage a dev to develop a feature
>> important to us but might not be recognised as important to the larger QGIS
>> project, or engage a trainer to provide professional development via Zoom,
>> the types of things that are hard to do as individuals or as a user group
>> with no funds etc. The membership arrangement also allows us to offer
>> membership to organisations which will become a way for them to support
>> QGIS and their local QGIS community. Ideally, this is where a majority of
>> the funds would come from as we don't want an individual to be excluded due
>> to a "fee", which is also covered in the charter. I'm available as I'm sure
>> the other proposers are to discuss the intention of this further and in the
>> open on this list.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Any questions feel free to ask or if you prefer to comment on the
>> charter that is fine too.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I look forward to discussing this with you.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Thanks
>> >>>> > Andrew
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > --
>> >>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "QGIS Australia User Group" group.
>> >>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to australian-qgis-user-group+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> >>>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/australian-qgis-user-group/CADTxF6bV6OicKcLveZsexfQ_gLULoFTpATV3iyjxWBswRyM_iA%40mail.gmail.com
>> .
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "QGIS Australia User Group" group.
>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to australian-qgis-user-group+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> >>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/australian-qgis-user-group/CAFORoyh3xiAcvRrAWbNK%3DrH%2B0-DUhq1GZnVp08t8HX90R9tdKA%40mail.gmail.com
>> .
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "QGIS Australia User Group" group.
>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to australian-qgis-user-group+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> >>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/australian-qgis-user-group/CADTxF6ZUvSgCSuzn-ikrGNAKBmaQ5Mc84uCTbOeLSLqRtjfzew%40mail.gmail.com
>> .
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "QGIS Australia User Group" group.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to australian-qgis-user-group+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> >> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/australian-qgis-user-group/CAHY5hn8OAzyneschpsBa2XwifpKo47mFrWfwGafoDAOJjFir1Q%40mail.gmail.com
>> .
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "QGIS Australia User Group" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to australian-qgis-user-group+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/australian-qgis-user-group/CADTxF6b8jpUOK8EeMyUnd3rYG9N_EAKtU%3D%2Bwao1ZZUHBHUw9aQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> .
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "QGIS Australia User Group" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to australian-qgis-user-group+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/australian-qgis-user-group/CAFORoyiDubVGZybpYo_uQs_8m%2BF9-LKcKTWHtrNG41vT8Mf%2BmA%40mail.gmail.com
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Cameron Shorter
>>
>> Technical Writer, Google
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Alex Leith
>>
>> m: 0419189050
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "QGIS Australia User Group" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to australian-qgis-user-group+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/australian-qgis-user-group/5BAC325B-3737-48E0-8BB3-DEA443E3AD37%40gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/australian-qgis-user-group/5BAC325B-3737-48E0-8BB3-DEA443E3AD37%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "QGIS Australia User Group" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to australian-qgis-user-group+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/australian-qgis-user-group/8A38D2B4-7014-4F98-96B7-F1C51FD5ADF2%40gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/australian-qgis-user-group/8A38D2B4-7014-4F98-96B7-F1C51FD5ADF2%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20201206/85b70074/attachment.html>