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. > 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
