I think Bruce has put some of my concerns about the questions into good
examples the resonate with my concerns.
For example: I am a long time contributor to multiple OSGeo projects and
have mentored some smaller projects that are not OSGeo projects yet but
are key pieces of GIS infrastructure. I have invested a lot of time and
effort and as a consultant, being able claim I'm a Charter Member gives
me some marketing credibility.
I would like to vote for both general membership and meritorious
membership, or to say both exclusive and inclusive membership classes
and we might want a third class sponsorship class of membership.
Given the amount of time I invest in OSGeo including being a GSoC Mentor
for 6-7 years which benefited OSGeo financially, I find it hard to vote
for membership dues.
I know this is a complex issues and everyone has an opinion, so more
power to you for taking on this task. If you can do anything to address
these types of concerns that would make this survey all the more
valuable. Maybe do not force a sequence of questions and let each
question stand on its own with an other write in field.
Best regards,
-Steve
On 7/30/2015 8:07 PM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
Hi Vassile,
This survey appears to be flawed.
I applaud your efforts to bring this issue to a head, but I'm not
convinced that we'll get valid results from the survey.
In my case:
I believe that there should be open membership for any interested,
perhaps with a membership fee.
I also see the value of recognising key contributors voted through some
meritocracy process as the current Charter Membership allows, with this
group having a voting responsibility. This is in essence not very
different from the concept of a 'committers' group within an open source
project. I don't really care if the name 'Charter Membership' is changed.
However the survey appears to lead people into a binary situation where
they believe in 'open' or 'closed' with 'closed' apparently assigned to
those favouring 'Charter Membership'.
For example:
I'd like to vote NO to 'Should OSGeo move from the actual elected
Charter member model to an (open) regular membership?'
But, YES to 'If you agree with the OSGeo regular membership, do you also
agree with a low annual membership fee?'
However, I'm precluded from doing so, because I answered NO to Q1.
For Question 4, I would like to answer both:
- YES for Open, in the context that everyone interested should be able
to participate in discussions and the OSGeo Community (perhaps having
paid a membership fee); and
- YES for 'Closed', in the context of key votes being subject to the
equivalent of a 'Committers' list where people have been voted in
through some meritocracy process.
- However, I can only choose one or the other!
I haven't read the remaining questions at this stage, given the flawed
questions at the beginning.
I apologise if you had sent this out for review earlier. I have not been
following this debate closely as this type of membership noise pops up
on a regular basis.
However, when this proceeds to a vote of the OSGeo Charter membership, I
need to register a comment.
For consideration.
Bruce
From: Vasile Crăciunescu <c...@osgeo.org <mailto:c...@osgeo.org>>
Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu <c...@osgeo.org <mailto:c...@osgeo.org>>
Date: Thursday, 30 July 2015 23:52
To: Bruce Bannerman <>
Subject: Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations
Dear Bruce,
As an existing OSGeo Charter Member, you have been invited to
participate in the 2015 OSGeo membership consultations.
To participate, please click on the link below.
Sincerely,
Vasile ()
----------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
