[OpenLayers-Dev] PSC Vote on Sponsorship Doc
crschmidt at metacarta.com
Wed Nov 12 14:14:13 EST 2008
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Tim Schaub wrote:
> So, motivated by the OSGeo Project Sponsorship program, Chris did a
> great job of putting together a document that describes the potential
> sponsorship opportunities with OpenLayers.
> This document describes a few things:
> 1) our intent to seek sponsorship via the OSGeo Project Sponsorship program;
> 2) high level goals for use of sponsorship funds; and
> 3) details on uses, benefits, and the process.
> John has raised questions about having the OSGeo manage our sponsorship
> program versus having some other entity manage the program. I think we
> have agreed to treat this question separately - to entertain suggestions
> on alternative methods of managing the sponsorship program after we
> agree on the core goals.
If we're going to do this, I think we need to change the document. I
can't see any way that we can achieve the goals described in the
document in a way that isn't through the OSGeo project sponsorship
program. For example, if we decide to pursue a financial path that
requires direct payment from sponsors to an organization receiving
money, then the idea of using these funds for paying for items like code
sprints becomes less tenable, etc.
If we're seriously considering pursuing funding thrugh something other
than OSGeo, I don't see a reason that we need to agree n the document as
written, or a way in which the 'core goals' we're talking about can
remain relevant in the face of the various possibilities that we might
pursue for funding sources.
> I would like to call a vote specifically on the document linked above.
> The issue we're voting on looks something like this:
> If we agree to pursue sponsorship for OpenLayers via the OSGeo Project
> Sponsorship program, the PSC believes that the sponsorship document
> referenced  adequately describes the goals, intended uses, and
> potential benefits of project sponsorship.
In which case, it seems to me we should be voting on the conditinal
first, no? If we're not going t pursue funding through OSGeo then this
vote is completely irrelevant? Why are we voting on something which
could turn out to be irrelevant?
I'll politely abstain from voting on this proposal, since I can't see
how it's relevant without first resolving the conditional embedded
within it. Once we do that, I'll gladly reconsider the
document/principles in question.
More information about the Dev