On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Christopher Schmidt < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Tim Schaub wrote: > > Hey- > > > > So, motivated by the OSGeo Project Sponsorship program, Chris did a > > great job of putting together a document that describes the potential > > sponsorship opportunities with OpenLayers. > > > > http://svn.openlayers.org/project/sponsorship/sponsoring > > > > This document describes a few things: > > 1) our intent to seek sponsorship via the OSGeo Project Sponsorship > program; > > 2) high level goals for use of sponsorship funds; and > > 3) details on uses, benefits, and the process. > > > > John has raised questions about having the OSGeo manage our sponsorship > > program versus having some other entity manage the program. I think we > > have agreed to treat this question separately - to entertain suggestions > > on alternative methods of managing the sponsorship program after we > > agree on the core goals. > > If we're going to do this, I think we need to change the document. I > can't see any way that we can achieve the goals described in the > document in a way that isn't through the OSGeo project sponsorship > program. For example, if we decide to pursue a financial path that > requires direct payment from sponsors to an organization receiving > money, then the idea of using these funds for paying for items like code > sprints becomes less tenable, etc. > > If we're seriously considering pursuing funding thrugh something other > than OSGeo, I don't see a reason that we need to agree n the document as > written, or a way in which the 'core goals' we're talking about can > remain relevant in the face of the various possibilities that we might > pursue for funding sources. Can you explain why direct payment from sponsors would preclude paying for code sprints? I don't see why anything would change at all whether it be via osgeo or any other method. Erik > > > > I would like to call a vote specifically on the document linked above. > > The issue we're voting on looks something like this: > > > > If we agree to pursue sponsorship for OpenLayers via the OSGeo Project > > Sponsorship program, the PSC believes that the sponsorship document > > referenced [1] adequately describes the goals, intended uses, and > > potential benefits of project sponsorship. > > In which case, it seems to me we should be voting on the conditinal > first, no? If we're not going t pursue funding through OSGeo then this > vote is completely irrelevant? Why are we voting on something which > could turn out to be irrelevant? > > I'll politely abstain from voting on this proposal, since I can't see > how it's relevant without first resolving the conditional embedded > within it. Once we do that, I'll gladly reconsider the > document/principles in question. > > Regards, > -- > Christopher Schmidt > MetaCarta > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > Dev@openlayers.org > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
