Within 2 weeks we intend to start our annual process for selecting new
OSGeo charter members.
In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been a little
contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations from high caliber
members of our community, and insufficient positions t
Dear all,
some thoughts on the proposed changes on the Charter Member election
process.
I will divide my comments into two parts, first some issues about the
process itself and then some comments on the proposed changes.
(A) the process per se:
1/ I think that whatever change in the election
2014-06-15 1:52 GMT+02:00 Cameron Shorter :
> Within 2 weeks we intend to start our annual process for selecting new
> OSGeo charter members.
>
> In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been a little
> contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations from high caliber
> m
Hi List,
Regarding the new proposal for voting in charter members- it's slightly off
topic, but I doubt all existing Local Chapter representatives have been
voted in by at least 3 charter members. That sets the bar quite high for
new chapters as well- under the new regime if they have no existing
That's on topic, actually I think that is the topic.
I agree that it's a little odd. I can actually see cases where someone
may be on a PSC but not because 3 charter members voted for them (could
even have voted against them).
I suspect in the case of Local chapters the idea was that several
memb
I like the idea of the new Charter Membership rules.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Jo Cook wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> Regarding the new proposal for voting in charter members- it's slightly
> off topic, but I doubt all existing Local Chapter representatives have been
> voted in by at least 3 char
On 06/17/2014 12:22 PM, Eli Adam wrote:
> I like the idea of the new Charter Membership rules.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Jo Cook wrote:
>
>> Hi List,
>>
>> Regarding the new proposal for voting in charter members- it's slightly
>> off topic, but I doubt all existing Local Chapter r
Thanks all for the feedback.
One thing that you have made me realise is that the text was potentially
unclear as to whether a person is eligible as a recognised community
leader if they previously, but not currently hold a role as a PSC member
(or similar). The intent is they should be eligible
On 18/06/2014 5:48 am, Alex Mandel wrote:
Is the board going to vote on this proposal or all charter members?
Alex,
Vote on the changed process will be put to the board. It is currently
significantly easier to manage a board process than a charter member
voting process.
--
Cameron Shorter,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[...]
> Is the board going to vote on this proposal or all charter
> members?
>
> Thanks, Alex
This is actually a good question and maybe points towards a new way of
leveraging our Charter Membership. I would think that it would be
worthwhile to pass
+1
D.
On 18-06-14 04:15, Arnulf Christl wrote:
> [...]
> > Is the board going to vote on this proposal or all charter
> > members?
>
> > Thanks, Alex
>
> This is actually a good question and maybe points towards a new way of
> leveraging our Charter Membership. I would think that it would be
> wor
http://www.aag.org/cs/membership/individual_membership
http://www.aag.org/cs/membership/individual_membership/dues
Both simpler, and better for the bottom line of OSGeo, if you want to
be a member, sign up as a member, collect your t-shirt, see you @
foss4g.
P.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:28 AM,
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".
- yes, democracy is expensive, but generally it is considered worth the effort.
- is "lifelong members
Thanks Paul, Dimitris and Peter for your thoughts.
Comments inline.
On 20/06/2014 4:31 am, Paul Ramsey wrote:
http://www.aag.org/cs/membership/individual_membership
http://www.aag.org/cs/membership/individual_membership/dues
Both simpler, and better for the bottom line of OSGeo, if you want to
On Jun 20, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Thanks Paul, Dimitris and Peter for your thoughts.
>
> Comments inline.
>
> On 20/06/2014 4:31 am, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>> http://www.aag.org/cs/membership/individual_membership
>> http://www.aag.org/cs/membership/individual_membership/dues
>
Good food for thought Howard, can’t say I disagree with anything you say here.
The only thing we need to consider is that for some countries 50 or 70 USD can
still be a lot of money.
Best regards,
Bart
On 23 Jun 2014, at 16:12, Howard Butler wrote:
>
> On Jun 20, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Cameron Sh
On Jun 23, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
> Good food for thought Howard, can’t say I disagree with anything you say here.
>
> The only thing we need to consider is that for some countries 50 or 70 USD
> can still be a lot of money
Yes. Something equitable could be arrived at.
+1 for dues. I would sign up.
On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Howard Butler wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>
>> Good food for thought Howard, can’t say I disagree with anything you say
>> here.
>>
>> The only thing we need to consider is that for some coun
On 6/23/14 9:25 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
Good food for thought Howard, can’t say I disagree with anything you say here.
The only thing we need to consider is that for some countries 50 or 70 USD can
still be a lot of money.
All,
I also agree whole heartily with Howard.
Regarding the n
Membership dues for OSGeo could very well work, but they would change the
nature of the organization. While it makes sense for those who are
professionals and thus want to belong to professional organizations, many
OSGeo members are not "professionals" in the sense of depending upon
OSGeo's project
AAG has a sliding income scale, no reason something like that, or a
"hamburger index" multiplier, can't be used to fix that up.
http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index
P.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
> Good food for thought Howard, can’t say I disagree wit
On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, P Kishor wrote:
> Membership dues for OSGeo could very well work, but they would change the
> nature of the organization.
Yes, that may be true, however it is also true that OSGeo as an organization
has significantly evolved significantly two or three times since
Howard,
I’ve wanted membership dues to happen for a long time, but haven’t been able to
express it as eloquently or as persuasively as you just did.
Mark
On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Howard Butler wrote:
>
> On Jun 20, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Cameron Shorter
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Paul, Dimitri
All,
nice to have this discussion brought on table, finally.
Some local chapters already collect fees for their membership.
So OSGeo may collect a percentage of perceived fees.
Obviously, this should be discussed and defined by local chapters.
It may lead to increasing the current membership price
> On Jun 23, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Howard Butler wrote:
>
> Do you lose a significant benefit by not being a Charter Member? Just the
> ability to vote for the board and the ability to tout your exclusivity on a
> vita/resume. Anything else? Lack of membership does not prevent anyone from
> part
On Jun 23, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 23, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Howard Butler wrote:
>>
>> Do you lose a significant benefit by not being a Charter Member? Just the
>> ability to vote for the board and the ability to tout your exclusivity on a
>> vita/resume. Any
Dear Cameron,
thanks for the reply and the comments to my previous e-mail. It also
gave me a chance to revisit the rules around the charter members.
I was expecting this issue to be further discussed within the community
and i am a bit disappointed with the evolution of the discussion, given
t
On 06/23/2014 11:01 AM, Dimitris Kotzinos wrote:
> Dear Cameron,
>
> thanks for the reply and the comments to my previous e-mail. It also
> gave me a chance to revisit the rules around the charter members.
> I was expecting this issue to be further discussed within the community
> and i am a bit d
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
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,
I think that might be a slight misunderstanding. We are an international
organization, our main funding accounts happen to be subject to US law
currently.
The main funds used to seed FOSS4g each year come from this, which 2/3+
of the time is outside the US. Exhibition packs to local chapters comes
Thanks for your feedback Dimitris,
You have made some valuable comments.
I'm also surprised that there has only been a few comments on this
thread, although I'm hopeful that this equates to a general feeling that
the proposal as crafted is reasonably close to group opinion.
The proposal as it
Ah, I replied to this email (from my osgeo-board inbox) before reading
the rest of my emails from my osgeo-discuss inbox. I see there has been
a lot of discussion about this proposal in the last 12 hrs.
I'm still of the opinion that charter membership is most valuable when
provided to recogni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/23/2014 08:46 PM, Alex Mandel wrote:
[...]
> Comparing to http://www.osgeo.org/charter_members is somewhat
> challenging (seems to be in no particular order, perhaps random
> order on purpose).
>
> Thanks, Alex
[...]
What do you mean "random o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/23/2014 09:33 PM, b.j.kob...@utwente.nl wrote:
> 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
nsagem original-
De: Mr. Puneet Kishor [mailto:punk.k...@gmail.com]
Enviada: segunda-feira, 23 de Junho de 2014 17:41
Para: Howard Butler
Cc: ML osgeo discuss
Assunto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter
members
> On Jun 23, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Howard Butler
Hi,
I was following this thread with disbelief how most of the participants
don't understand which is the situation of open idea, open source
applications and open data in most countries round the world. And what
kind of support those people get when trying to bring message to
disbelievers. A
Hi Kari,
some replies inline.
Best regards,
Bart
On 24 Jun 2014, at 11:47, Kari Salovaara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was following this thread with disbelief how most of the participants don't
> understand which is the situation of open idea, open source applications and
> open data in most countri
El 24/06/14 10:58, Duarte Carreira escribió:
> Well I just have to chime in...
>
> I do promote osgeo projects all the time. I don't get paid. I am a Charter
> Member. This sometimes is useful for people to understand the sense of
> community that exists in Open Source projects, as opposed to "o
Following the community discussion, I further researched OSGeo's
foundation documents, (in retrospect I should have done this earlier).
Of particular relevance to current discussion is our ByLaws:
http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
/Section 7.1. Admission of [Char
ron Shorter
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter
> members
> Date: 25 June 2014 12:31:03 BST
> To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>
>
> Following the community discussion, I further researched OSGeo's foundation
> documents, (in retrospect
Correct: “membership”, by design at the original founding meeting, was designed
not to confer ANY rights or distinguishing properties except for the ability to
vote for board members.
While the election process is pretty messy right now, I view that as a solvable
problem: I’m still at a loss to
Possible reasons for change:
Inclusiveness
Democracy
Growth
Openness
__
Steven
On 26 Jun 2014, at 17:21, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> Correct: “membership”, by design at the original founding meeting, was
> designed not to confer ANY rights or distinguishing properties except for the
> abil
OSGeo board,
In the interests of making a decision such that Jorge Salinas (our CRO)
can move forward, I propose the following process be followed for voting
new charter members in 2014:
1. Charter member to nominate potential new charter member(s) (as before).
2. Charter members then vote (i
In general this sounds workable for this year. Nominations will no
longer compete against each other but only against the benchmark of what
makes a good member.
The only reservation I have is on the 50% Yes/No, but maybe I just need
a clarification.
I see plenty of people potentially voting Yes/No
Le dimanche 29 juin 2014 22:39:42, Alex Mandel a écrit :
> In general this sounds workable for this year. Nominations will no
> longer compete against each other but only against the benchmark of what
> makes a good member.
>
> The only reservation I have is on the 50% Yes/No, but maybe I just nee
Cameron & all,
a lot of serious, involved work is going on on this thread; however, some core
issues which I tried to phrase, but Steven (Feldman) expressed much crisper,
still remain unaddressed by the currently voted proposal:
* Inclusiveness
* Democracy
* Growth
* Openness
The proposa
Hey Peter,
so what would be your suggestions to make the process more of the 4 bullet
points you mentioned?
Best regards,
Bart
On 30 Jun 2014, at 09:24, Peter Baumann wrote:
> Cameron & all,
>
> a lot of serious, involved work is going on on this thread; however, some
> core issues which I
Hi Bart,
what I have in mind is the following (but for sure not the only possible way):
- have a well-defined membership status (registered on OSGeo list, paid
membership, whatever other criterion)
- have 2 rounds of election:
* everybody (=members, or even outsiders) can suggest anybody fr
-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On
Behalf Of Alex Mandel [tech_...@wildintellect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2014 5:58 AM
To: b.j.kob...@utwente.nl; discuss@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter
members
I think that might be a slight misunderstanding. We a
Bruce, you have been contributing to OSGeo for so long, and it is a big
oversight that you are not a Charter member. I have admired your
professionalism for a long time. In fact I can see you as a future
Board member of OSGeo.
I do want to use Charter member input more for the foundation decisio
51 matches
Mail list logo
