Dirk, I feel your e-mail nails it on the spot.
Well spoken, I totally agree. Milo 2014-07-01 18:46 GMT+02:00 Dirk Frigne <dirk.fri...@geosparc.com>: > Although I am not so active on the mailing list, I am an OSGeo's > advocate, and I take the opportunity to promote OSGeo wherever I can. > > I became an OSGeo member in 2007 because I was proud on what the > organisation did and I wanted to support it, with the scarce resources I > own. > > One of the things I appreciate enormously is > > - The organisation is open (as in open source) > - Becoming a member of the organisation is totally free (*yes* like in > free beer!) > - the organisation has a perfect DNA: > - members can > - act as *A* user > - act as *T*echnical skilled person (sofware developers, > industry, documentation) > - work at *G*overmental body > - member of the s*C*ientific world (academic world) > > In the world of today *free* as in gratis, *free* as in *free* *beer*, > doing something for > somebody else is very rare (scarce) that it becomes very valuable. > Being a part of a community like OSGeo not only is *fun* but also gives > you a *good* feeling, and it is very motivating to work in a company or > organisation that supports OSGeo. > > I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having > that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to > the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo > community didn't result in any bad experience until now) > > Of course, an organisation needs money, To support some stuff (.svn or > whathever goal is worth supporting). But I think we should keep the > membership *free* (and not as in *free* beer!), because it is in my eyes > a very essential part of OSGeo: > > "Core principles are: > > OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. > OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives > which support themselves. " [1] > > As in DNA, different chains have different roles. > > *G*overnments are happy to have such a movement as the Free and open > source software [2] movement, because they can avoid vendor lock-in, > gain control over their projects (read: become free again), and save a > lot of money. They should take this advantage seriously and sponsor open > source activities. > > the s*C*ientific world is happy to use open source solutions, because > they can study the tools themselves and focus on research, not being > bothered of the licenses they are using. > They also should take this advantage seriously and donate scientific > relevant material they don't want to exploit immediately to the community. > > *A*ny user should be free (*not* as in free beer) to use and experiment > with the results of what the community is producing. The community > should welcome *A*ny user and help him to find his way, so he can take > his responsibility and earn respect for what he is doing. > > And last but not least: the *T*echnically skilled persons are the heart > of the community. Being able to create great teamwork and donate back to > the community. Also they should take their responsibility and earn the > respect they deserve. > > But where is the money we need to operate the organisation? > > Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who > should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should > remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the > intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. > > The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional > involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). > So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for > the support, but these professional actors. > And they (the professional actors) should become a member (in their role > of incorporation) to support it. But sponsored membership should not > give rights to vote, or whatsoever. The only thing you gain is that you, > as a professional incorporation, are happy with an organisation as > OSGeo, fighting for your rights to be able to use *free* software. And > the sponsors should trust and believe that a low capital, volunteer > focused organisation will do that for them, as they do it already today. > > The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the > common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today. > > my 2c > > [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities > [2] http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software > > Dirk > On 24-06-14 15:12, Even Rouault wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Interesting topic that raises quite a few questions. > > > > I think that all people who have commented in that thread have not > necessarily > > agreed if membership fees would be something in addition to the > nomination and > > election processs, or if it would replace it. > > > > If we switch to a paid membership, one would likely have to identify the > > benefits brought by being a member. Voting rights for the board would > probably > > not a big enough benefit. In the AAG example quoted by Paul, there are > several > > benefits associated: access to journals, reduced prices to > > publications/meetings, etc... That would mean that there is a commitment > of > > OSGeo to provide the advertized benefits, and thus the question on how to > > guarantee this commitment would arise : volunteers effort, or paid > > staff/contractors ? > > Interestingly one of the benefit of AAG membership is access to "AAG > specialty > > groups" whose equivalent in OSGeo would probably be our mailing lists. > So would > > we want to restrict access to those to non members ? Mateusz also > mentionned > > that bills have to be paid to maintain some OSGeo servers, like svn. > Would we > > want to restrict access to those servers only to the folks who have paid > the > > membership fee ? Probably not. > > > > We have only mentionned individual members, but would we want to extend > to > > corportate members as well ? > > > > From my perspective, OSGeo Charter membership is a recognition for the > > accomplishments of an individual to support OSGeo values and missions, > and thus > > gets a right to define its steering through board election. Perhaps we > at a > > community sometimes fail to welcome people who would deserve it, because > they > > are a bit outside of our usual networks to be nominated (or because > people are > > not confortable enough to do public nominations, perhaps for language or > > cultural reasons), or because we reach the yearly quota for new members. > That's > > certainly a pitty if folks feel excluded whereas I think we generally > try to be > > rather inclusive. > > > > One thing to keep in mind is that if we translate into money the value > of the > > accomplishments of OSGeo Charter members, I'm pretty sure that in 99.99% > of the > > cases that translates to much more than USD 70. You can probably add one > or two > > zeros to that figure. So asking them for a fee, in addition to their > other forms > > of contribution, would seem a bit awkward, although I can understand that > > contribution in term of money rather than time is sometimes more useful. > So I > > wouldn't object to paying a membership fee. > > > > But IMHO the main question is : do we need membership fees to sustain > OSGeo ? > > Aren't surplus funds generated by FOSS4G sufficient for that (although I > can > > understand that Howard's fear that FOSS4G organization by volunteers > might not > > be a sustainable model) ? Or perhaps we would need more funds to be able > to do > > more things ? > > > > OSGeo is perhaps rather different from other organizations in the > geomatics > > field in the way it manages its membership, but is it more a strength or > a > > weakness ? > > > > Even > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- > Yours sincerely, > > > ir. Dirk Frigne > CEO > > Geosparc n.v. > Brugsesteenweg 587 > B-9030 Ghent > Tel: +32 9 236 60 18 > GSM: +32 495 508 799 > > http://www.geomajas.org > http://www.geosparc.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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