Thanks! Emma Hain
> On 30 Nov 2020, at 17:03, Phil Wyatt <p...@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 <emmah...@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 <tom...@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-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> >>> Date: Monday, 30 November 2020 at 1:51 pm >>> To: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shor...@gmail.com> >>> Cc: QGIS Australia User Group >>> <australian-qgis-user-gr...@googlegroups.com>, OSgeo - Oceania >>> <oceania@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.shor...@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.st...@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 <aljeffre...@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 <johnwbry...@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, <aljeffre...@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.st...@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 <aljeffre...@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+unsubscr...@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+unsubscr...@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+unsubscr...@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+unsubscr...@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+unsubscr...@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+unsubscr...@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@lists.osgeo.org >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Alex Leith >>> m: 0419189050 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Oceania mailing list >>> Oceania@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+unsubscr...@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. > _______________________________________________ > Oceania mailing list > Oceania@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
_______________________________________________ Oceania mailing list Oceania@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
