I am very dissapointed in this whole membership/fees discussion. In reading the emails one does not see the international volunteer community I would like to think OSGEO is (should be), but it rather seems we are dealing with a US-based professional organisation, mostly keen on not paying US taxes, and that is not what I want OSGEO to become...
-- Barend Köbben ITC - University of Twente PO Box 217, 7500AE Enschede (The Netherlands) +31-(0)53 4874 253 @barendkobben On 23-06-14 21:00, "Alex Mandel" <tech_...@wildintellect.com> wrote: > >On 06/19/2014 11:58 AM, Peter Baumann wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> good - and important! - discussion! >> Being Charter Member I am somewhat concerned: >> >> - I am surprised that the common democratic procedure of election is >> perceived as creating "dissent". > >Well it's somewhat conjecture without public confirmation that someone >walked away from OSGeo because they didn't get picked. > >> - yes, democracy is expensive, but generally it is considered worth the >> effort. >> - is "lifelong membership" compatible with community participation? > >Nope and we've actually have discussed in the past what the rules should >be to weed out charter members who no longer particpate in the community. > >> - "Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders" seem to get determined in a very >> special, selective way (as compared to standard election procedures). >> >> Altogether, the criteria seem to make OSGeo a self-sustaining group: >> insiders will remain insiders for a lifetime, outsiders will...well, >> face a hurdle. >> >> So the contrary of "open". >> >> Just an idea: what about applying the OSGeo incubation checklist to >> OSGeo itself to determine feasible procedures? >> >> cheers, >> Peter > >I think the discussion of membership fees is timely this year now that >we officially have our IRS 501c4 status. Why, well when we were aiming >for 501c3 that would have given us donations as tax write offs for US >members. Without that incentive to donate, membership now seems like it >might be the way to push individuals to donate. > >The amount should be researched quite a bit though, factoring in how to >reach maximum membership, with lowest overhead (collecting and tracking >membership will incur a cost). > >Since we don't maintain a huge office, an in print journal, a lobbyist >or things like that we should be able to be much lower that other >professional societies. I agree it should be relative to country of >members, and there probably should be some sharing in places where local >chapters exist - or the local chapters trust us to split the money back >to them for things they need. > >I'd suggest something in the $20-$30 US, students $5-$10. Maybe with a >sliding scale like PBS or Kickstarter, where if you voluntarily pay more >in a given year you get swag of some sort. > >I'm trying to avoid the syndrome (I'm guilty of this) where one pays for >membership only in a year when it will get you a discount worth more >than the membership for the conference. > >I agree with Arnulf that these decisions should probably go to e-vote of >all the current charter members, the boards responsibility is to put >forward a coherent plan for the vote. Obviously if the board all hates >the ideas it should stop there for now. > >Thanks, >Alex > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss