Hi all,
I support the ideas exposed by Cameron and Stefano. Particularly for what
concerns charter members, as a charter member, I am aware that voting the
boarding members is a strong responsibility, but I think we should have
more responsibilities linked to our role. Personally, since I have
There was a discussion about responsibility of Charter members
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2011-December/009239.html
and a wiki page (see below) was initiated (at the request of a Board member)
but not much input after that.
Venka:
Your points have actually been discussed, but so far there hasn't apparently
been enough interest to further push the idea of stronger charter member roles.
(Your points (1) and (3) are already the case, and some people (myself
included) feel that (2) is not desirable right now.)
As far as I’m aware, the original “Ambassador” concept came up during a board
meeting, where it was intended to just address the question that the board very
occasionally needs to send a board member, or someone equally prominent, to
certain events we’d been invited to participate in. For
Michael,
On 2012/05/05 23:58, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
Your points have actually been discussed, but so far there hasn't apparently
been enough interest to further push the idea of stronger charter member roles.
enough interest in the community or the OSGeo Board?
(Your points (1) and (3)
I second Michael's sentiments. Use of terms such as distinguished and elite
in the context of OSGeo community makes me extremely uncomfortable.
On May 5, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
Your points have actually been discussed, but so far there hasn't
apparently been enough
Michael,
I agree that we have expanded the Ambassador role to include what you
have referred to as a Speakers bureau, which I think is a good thing.
It is also opt-in; charter members need not register themselves if they
don't want to. It is also deliberately non-exclusive, as any member of
