+1 Frank's statement is exactly what I would like to see also. Edwin
On 8/3/15, Stephen Woodbridge <wood...@swoodbridge.com> wrote: > +1 Frank's statement is exactly what I would like to see also. > > -Steve > > On 8/3/2015 12:39 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote: >> Folks, >> >> For what it's worth, I also do not feel comfortable with completing >> the survey as it is currently structured as the structure forces me to >> give answers that don't really represent my views. >> >> For what it's worth I am in favor of: >> - a modest number of charter members using something like the current >> process >> - open membership >> - no manditory membership fees >> - make every effort to treat regular members the same as charter >> members except for the minimum voting stuff required to be legally >> distinct. >> >> Best regards, >> Frank >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jim Klassen <klassen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before >>> OSGeo existed. I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated >>> discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take. >>> The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very >>> important to me. >>> >>> However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly >>> the survey has me confused as to how I should respond. >>> >>> For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be >>> improved? Where are the results of this survey going? Does this survey >>> count as an official vote(s)? >>> >>> On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote: >>>> Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others, >>>> >>>> Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet >>>> access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as >>>> Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on >>>> the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected >>>> that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board >>>> mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a >>>> dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to >>>> comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our >>>> Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please >>>> keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members >>>> and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills. >>>> >>>> Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method >>>> to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many >>>> years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new >>>> proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to >>>> include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo >>>> membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really >>>> flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the "board" and >>>> "discuss" mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different >>>> opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their >>>> ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the >>>> survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and >>>> not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question >>>> based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful >>>> for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization >>>> on the right track. >>>> >>>> Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast! >>>> Vasile >>>> >>>> PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of >>>> them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture. >>>> >>>> On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, Bruce Bannerman wrote: >>>>> Hi Vassile, >>>>> >>>>> This survey appears to be flawed. >>>>> >>>>> I applaud your efforts to bring this issue to a head, but I'm not >>>>> convinced >>>>> that we'll get valid results from the survey. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In my case: >>>>> >>>>> I believe that there should be open membership for any interested, >>>>> perhaps >>>>> with a membership fee. >>>>> >>>>> I also see the value of recognising key contributors voted through some >>>>> meritocracy process as the current Charter Membership allows, with this >>>>> group having a voting responsibility. This is in essence not very >>>>> different >>>>> from the concept of a 'committers' group within an open source >>>>> project. I >>>>> don't really care if the name 'Charter Membership' is changed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However the survey appears to lead people into a binary situation where >>>>> they believe in 'open' or 'closed' with 'closed' apparently assigned to >>>>> those favouring 'Charter Membership'. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For example: >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to vote NO to 'Should OSGeo move from the actual elected >>>>> Charter >>>>> member model to an (open) regular membership?' >>>>> >>>>> But, YES to 'If you agree with the OSGeo regular membership, do you >>>>> also >>>>> agree with a low annual membership fee?' >>>>> >>>>> However, I'm precluded from doing so, because I answered NO to Q1. >>>>> >>>>> For Question 4, I would like to answer both: >>>>> >>>>> - YES for Open, in the context that everyone interested should be >>>>> able to >>>>> participate in discussions and the OSGeo Community (perhaps having >>>>> paid a >>>>> membership fee); and >>>>> >>>>> - YES for 'Closed', in the context of key votes being subject to the >>>>> equivalent of a 'Committers' list where people have been voted in >>>>> through >>>>> some meritocracy process. >>>>> >>>>> - However, I can only choose one or the other! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I haven't read the remaining questions at this stage, given the flawed >>>>> questions at the beginning. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I apologise if you had sent this out for review earlier. I have not >>>>> been >>>>> following this debate closely as this type of membership noise pops >>>>> up on a >>>>> regular basis. >>>>> >>>>> However, when this proceeds to a vote of the OSGeo Charter membership, >>>>> I >>>>> need to register a comment. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For consideration. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Vasile Crăciunescu <c...@osgeo.org> >>>>>> Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu <c...@osgeo.org> >>>>>> Date: Thursday, 30 July 2015 23:52 >>>>>> To: Bruce Bannerman <> >>>>>> Subject: Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership >>>>>> consultations >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Bruce, >>>>>> >>>>>> As an existing OSGeo Charter Member, you have been invited to >>>>>> participate >>>>>> in the 2015 OSGeo membership consultations. >>>>>> >>>>>> To participate, please click on the link below. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>> Vasile () >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Edwin Liava'a ICT/GIS/Data Specialist CheSpatial Lautoka, FIJI http://www.chespatial.com _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss