Hi Dirk, Several people have told me privately how impressed they were with your thoughts on this issue; I myself am not surprised to hear this about you, as you've impressed me with your vision before. In fact I hope you consider joining the OSGeo Board for this next term, we really need your leadership. I hope someone nominates you.
-jeff On 2014-07-03, 12:13 PM, Dirk Frigne wrote: > Mateusz, > > [and others], > > thanks for your reaction, > > On 02-07-14 11:44, Mateusz Łoskot wrote: >> On 1 July 2014 18:46, Dirk Frigne <[email protected]> wrote: >>> [...] >>> I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having >>> that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to >>> the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo >>> community didn't result in any bad experience until now) >>> [...] >>> "Core principles are: >>> >>> OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. >>> OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives >>> which support themselves. " [1] >>> [...] >>> Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who >>> should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should >>> remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the >>> intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. >>> >>> The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional >>> involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). >>> So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for >>> the support, but these professional actors. >>> [...] >>> The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the >>> common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today. >> Dirk, >> >> You've captured the essence well and it fits my personal point of view >> at OSGeo too. >> You've also given some good ideas to work on, on how to move about the >> mixture >> of expectations within the community. >> >> We may need to be careful to not to divide the community to classes of >> members, >> professionals and non-professionals. It may turn into a very similar >> issue as paying >> and non-paying members. > I agree with you. > What I tried to express with next phrase: > > The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional > involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). > So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for > the support, but these professional actors. > > Is the following: > > We are all members of one community, and as such are we are all acting > as users, in the broadest sense. > However, belonging to the community gives each member a return, also in > the broadest sense. > (f.e. because of the simple principle you will not become a member if > there is no return). > > What is important in my view, and I think many of us agree with that > (counting the positive reactions on my reply [2]), this return is not > about money, but in many aspects much more valuable. (I'll come to that > in the reply to Bruce [3] I am preparing). > > I observe that many (if not all) members of our community have different > roles in life. I tried to simplify these roles into 4 categories to use > the image of Deoxyribonucleic acid ( *DNA* ), where 4 nucleotides form > the kernel of all known living organisms. The only thing I tried to > express was that it should be the members that benefit in these > different roles in life, using tools, techniques, software or know how > they share in the community should have the [*not* mandatory] respect > to donate to the community they believe is valuable. > > (valuable not to be expressed in $$ but real *value* such as: > - having qualities worthy of respect, admiration, or esteem: a valuable > friend. > - of considerable use, service, or importance: valuable information. > )[4] > > Why? Because they get the opportunity to benefit from the common assets > of the community in whatever aspect, and get the possibility to return > some of these benefits for the needs of the community. > Important is that there is no guarantee what is done with what you > return, just like [many] members commit time, code or whatever without > expecting immediate return. > > Hope this makes it more clear. > >> >> >> Thanks for your writing. >> >> Best regards, > You're welcome, > > [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities > > [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-July/013030.html > [3] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-July/013043.html > [4] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valuable ; meaning 2. and 3. > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
