Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections
+1 On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Eli Adam ea...@co.lincoln.or.us wrote: Vasile, Great work pulling this together. We keep calling this discussion things like Charter member elections and addressing it during election periods. I think that topic is really something else, the nature and types of OSGeo Membership or something similar. If we evaluate our existing structure [1], I think that we can regard Participants as a resounding success (there are 10,000+ involved on the email lists, projects, events, etc). Just as the Participants are a success, I think that Members are a near complete failure [52] [53] in their current form, I think that Charter Members are working well enough in that they seem to be achieving their purpose of being people dedicated to the OSGeo Mission, electing the Board and Charter members, and preventing the unlikely scenario of a takeover. Charter membership seems to be fraught with all sorts of additional connotation, confusion, differring perspectives, and debate. Based on this, I think that OSGeo should further our success with participants, end membership since it failed, and refine Charter so that is works better. What OSGeo membership and Charter membership has been unclear to many. Here is the explanation that I often give to people (some of whom have been using and contributing to OSGeo projects for 5+ years): Members simply self identify as members on the wiki. Charter members are nominated and elected. They do what they see fit when they see fit to further/support the goals and mission of OSGeo. It has also historically been a badge of honor for contributing good work. What a Charter Member is is a matter of endless debate but the very practical purpose is simple: The real practical purpose of Charter Members is to elect the Board of Directors (and more Charter Members). It is to prevent hostile takeover of the organization (or the organization's resources) since OSGeo other than voting for the Board and Charter Members, is open to all who find it, figure out how to participate, are inclined to participate, and feel welcome. By offering to nominate you as a Charter Member what I really think is that: 1) you support the OSGeo Mission and Goals (promote Open Source GIS software through the world) 2) you are sufficiently responsible and care enough to pay minimal attention twice per year to vote for the OSGeo Board of Directors and additional Charter Members 3) in the extremely unlikely scenario of a hostile takeover you would first be aware of it and secondly vote to prevent it --this is really the sole purpose of Charter Members but it is so unlikely that people forget this is the purpose and it is sort of a stupid purpose (even if necessary). In that regard, I think that the survey should include some questions like: OSGeo Membership should be more open/closed Agree or Disagree 1-10; 10 is strongly agree, 1 is strongly disagree The primary purpose of OSGeo Membership is: a) increase participation in OSGeo activities b) recognize substantial OSGeo contributors c) give members a sense of identity and cohesion d) other_ Maintaining some structure to prevent takeover of the organization is: a) a waste of time and effort b) worthwhile even if guarding against an unlikely event c) other_ Charter membership should be renamed to a) keep it as Charter b) voting members c) electors d) other _ Charter membership should not be used as an honor or mark of prestige instead those should be addressed by a) disagree, charter membership is for prestige b) The Sol Katz Award c) we should have some other badge system d) other The number of Charter members should be a) restricted to some low number b) only be constrained by the number of good candidates available c) other _ and other questions regarding the types and nature of OSGeo membership I do believe that Charter members play an important role guarding against the extremely unlikely risk of a takeover. Other than that very minor role which can be achieved by several methods, I think that all OSGeo activities should be as open as possible to as many people as possible. Best regards, Eli [1] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership [52] http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Category:OSGeo_Member -- fewer than 1,000 people have bothered to register as Members [53] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_member_page_instruction On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Vasile Craciunescu vas...@geo-spatial.org wrote: Dear Cameron, Arnulf, Jeff and Gert-Jan, Thank you for your appreciations! It was an interesting exercise of digital archeology :) Dear all, I'm waiting until tomorrow for more feedback/ideas. Then I will draft a survey, I will send you the questions and ask for your opinion and finally, if all agree, the survey will be sent to all charter members.
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections
Hi Maxi and Eli, I like Maxi's clarification of charter member involvement. I see similarities with: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Suggested_involvement_from_board_members (I found this list, originally started by Arnulf, to be very useful when I was considering involvement with the board) In discussing OSGeo Roles, I'd suggest also mentioning OSGeo Advocates: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate OSGeo Advocates are authoritative OSGeo personalities who have volunteered to talk on behalf of the OSGeo foundation. Anyone can add themselves. When calling for OSGeo Charter members, I suggest we should also invite people to update their OSGeo Advocate profile, or add themselves if not already listed. Cheers, Cameron On 3/07/2015 5:47 pm, Massimiliano Cannata wrote: Thanks Eli, I agree with you about the distinction between Participants and Members. While participants are those that are working with open source technologies in the geospatial field (I know many people that don't care of OSGeo but follow many list of open source projects or topics because this is the only thing what they look at) members are thos that take care of OSGeo as a fundation and of its ultimate goals (disseminate, build, guarante, etc.). It is to me like users and committers of a software project. So the point is what is the role of a member? _Again in my opinion_, it should be: DUTIES: * abide the OSGeo code of conduct * support OSGeo goals * vote when is required * RIGHTS * vote for the Board * vote for any referendum * propose new members * RULES * removed from member if not voted for 3 consecutive time * removed from member if a severe infringement of CoC is detected * can propose 1 new member a year with 5 support letters of other members (no voting procedure but only verification from a committee to avoid takeover actions * ... And so on Maxi 2015-07-03 8:28 GMT+02:00 Eli Adam ea...@co.lincoln.or.us mailto:ea...@co.lincoln.or.us: Vasile, Great work pulling this together. We keep calling this discussion things like Charter member elections and addressing it during election periods. I think that topic is really something else, the nature and types of OSGeo Membership or something similar. If we evaluate our existing structure [1], I think that we can regard Participants as a resounding success (there are 10,000+ involved on the email lists, projects, events, etc). Just as the Participants are a success, I think that Members are a near complete failure [52] [53] in their current form, I think that Charter Members are working well enough in that they seem to be achieving their purpose of being people dedicated to the OSGeo Mission, electing the Board and Charter members, and preventing the unlikely scenario of a takeover. Charter membership seems to be fraught with all sorts of additional connotation, confusion, differring perspectives, and debate. Based on this, I think that OSGeo should further our success with participants, end membership since it failed, and refine Charter so that is works better. What OSGeo membership and Charter membership has been unclear to many. Here is the explanation that I often give to people (some of whom have been using and contributing to OSGeo projects for 5+ years): Members simply self identify as members on the wiki. Charter members are nominated and elected. They do what they see fit when they see fit to further/support the goals and mission of OSGeo. It has also historically been a badge of honor for contributing good work. What a Charter Member is is a matter of endless debate but the very practical purpose is simple: The real practical purpose of Charter Members is to elect the Board of Directors (and more Charter Members). It is to prevent hostile takeover of the organization (or the organization's resources) since OSGeo other than voting for the Board and Charter Members, is open to all who find it, figure out how to participate, are inclined to participate, and feel welcome. By offering to nominate you as a Charter Member what I really think is that: 1) you support the OSGeo Mission and Goals (promote Open Source GIS software through the world) 2) you are sufficiently responsible and care enough to pay minimal attention twice per year to vote for the OSGeo Board of Directors and additional Charter Members 3) in the extremely unlikely scenario of a hostile takeover you would first be aware of it and secondly vote to prevent it --this is really the sole purpose of Charter Members but it is so unlikely that people forget this is the purpose and it is sort of a stupid purpose (even if necessary). In that regard, I think that the survey should include some questions like: OSGeo Membership should be more
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections
Thanks Eli, I agree with you about the distinction between Participants and Members. While participants are those that are working with open source technologies in the geospatial field (I know many people that don't care of OSGeo but follow many list of open source projects or topics because this is the only thing what they look at) members are thos that take care of OSGeo as a fundation and of its ultimate goals (disseminate, build, guarante, etc.). It is to me like users and committers of a software project. So the point is what is the role of a member? *Again in my opinion*, it should be: DUTIES: * abide the OSGeo code of conduct * support OSGeo goals * vote when is required * RIGHTS * vote for the Board * vote for any referendum * propose new members * RULES * removed from member if not voted for 3 consecutive time * removed from member if a severe infringement of CoC is detected * can propose 1 new member a year with 5 support letters of other members (no voting procedure but only verification from a committee to avoid takeover actions * ... And so on Maxi 2015-07-03 8:28 GMT+02:00 Eli Adam ea...@co.lincoln.or.us: Vasile, Great work pulling this together. We keep calling this discussion things like Charter member elections and addressing it during election periods. I think that topic is really something else, the nature and types of OSGeo Membership or something similar. If we evaluate our existing structure [1], I think that we can regard Participants as a resounding success (there are 10,000+ involved on the email lists, projects, events, etc). Just as the Participants are a success, I think that Members are a near complete failure [52] [53] in their current form, I think that Charter Members are working well enough in that they seem to be achieving their purpose of being people dedicated to the OSGeo Mission, electing the Board and Charter members, and preventing the unlikely scenario of a takeover. Charter membership seems to be fraught with all sorts of additional connotation, confusion, differring perspectives, and debate. Based on this, I think that OSGeo should further our success with participants, end membership since it failed, and refine Charter so that is works better. What OSGeo membership and Charter membership has been unclear to many. Here is the explanation that I often give to people (some of whom have been using and contributing to OSGeo projects for 5+ years): Members simply self identify as members on the wiki. Charter members are nominated and elected. They do what they see fit when they see fit to further/support the goals and mission of OSGeo. It has also historically been a badge of honor for contributing good work. What a Charter Member is is a matter of endless debate but the very practical purpose is simple: The real practical purpose of Charter Members is to elect the Board of Directors (and more Charter Members). It is to prevent hostile takeover of the organization (or the organization's resources) since OSGeo other than voting for the Board and Charter Members, is open to all who find it, figure out how to participate, are inclined to participate, and feel welcome. By offering to nominate you as a Charter Member what I really think is that: 1) you support the OSGeo Mission and Goals (promote Open Source GIS software through the world) 2) you are sufficiently responsible and care enough to pay minimal attention twice per year to vote for the OSGeo Board of Directors and additional Charter Members 3) in the extremely unlikely scenario of a hostile takeover you would first be aware of it and secondly vote to prevent it --this is really the sole purpose of Charter Members but it is so unlikely that people forget this is the purpose and it is sort of a stupid purpose (even if necessary). In that regard, I think that the survey should include some questions like: OSGeo Membership should be more open/closed Agree or Disagree 1-10; 10 is strongly agree, 1 is strongly disagree The primary purpose of OSGeo Membership is: a) increase participation in OSGeo activities b) recognize substantial OSGeo contributors c) give members a sense of identity and cohesion d) other_ Maintaining some structure to prevent takeover of the organization is: a) a waste of time and effort b) worthwhile even if guarding against an unlikely event c) other_ Charter membership should be renamed to a) keep it as Charter b) voting members c) electors d) other _ Charter membership should not be used as an honor or mark of prestige instead those should be addressed by a) disagree, charter membership is for prestige b) The Sol Katz Award c) we should have some other badge system d) other The number of Charter members should be a) restricted to some low number b) only be constrained by the number of good candidates available c) other
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections
Dear All, don't forget about the moral task of Charter members, to be an advocate of OSGeo and FOSS4G. I would keep OSGeo membership, those who are not contributing code, documentation, etc. to a project, membership is the only way to express their connection to OSGeo. It is more than just to join a mailing list... Thank you Vasile for the great summary. Best regards, Zoltan On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Eli Adam wrote: Vasile, Great work pulling this together. We keep calling this discussion things like Charter member elections and addressing it during election periods. I think that topic is really something else, the nature and types of OSGeo Membership or something similar. If we evaluate our existing structure [1], I think that we can regard Participants as a resounding success (there are 10,000+ involved on the email lists, projects, events, etc). Just as the Participants are a success, I think that Members are a near complete failure [52] [53] in their current form, I think that Charter Members are working well enough in that they seem to be achieving their purpose of being people dedicated to the OSGeo Mission, electing the Board and Charter members, and preventing the unlikely scenario of a takeover. Charter membership seems to be fraught with all sorts of additional connotation, confusion, differring perspectives, and debate. Based on this, I think that OSGeo should further our success with participants, end membership since it failed, and refine Charter so that is works better. What OSGeo membership and Charter membership has been unclear to many. Here is the explanation that I often give to people (some of whom have been using and contributing to OSGeo projects for 5+ years): Members simply self identify as members on the wiki. Charter members are nominated and elected. They do what they see fit when they see fit to further/support the goals and mission of OSGeo. It has also historically been a badge of honor for contributing good work. What a Charter Member is is a matter of endless debate but the very practical purpose is simple: The real practical purpose of Charter Members is to elect the Board of Directors (and more Charter Members). It is to prevent hostile takeover of the organization (or the organization's resources) since OSGeo other than voting for the Board and Charter Members, is open to all who find it, figure out how to participate, are inclined to participate, and feel welcome. By offering to nominate you as a Charter Member what I really think is that: 1) you support the OSGeo Mission and Goals (promote Open Source GIS software through the world) 2) you are sufficiently responsible and care enough to pay minimal attention twice per year to vote for the OSGeo Board of Directors and additional Charter Members 3) in the extremely unlikely scenario of a hostile takeover you would first be aware of it and secondly vote to prevent it --this is really the sole purpose of Charter Members but it is so unlikely that people forget this is the purpose and it is sort of a stupid purpose (even if necessary). In that regard, I think that the survey should include some questions like: OSGeo Membership should be more open/closed Agree or Disagree 1-10; 10 is strongly agree, 1 is strongly disagree The primary purpose of OSGeo Membership is: a) increase participation in OSGeo activities b) recognize substantial OSGeo contributors c) give members a sense of identity and cohesion d) other_ Maintaining some structure to prevent takeover of the organization is: a) a waste of time and effort b) worthwhile even if guarding against an unlikely event c) other_ Charter membership should be renamed to a) keep it as Charter b) voting members c) electors d) other _ Charter membership should not be used as an honor or mark of prestige instead those should be addressed by a) disagree, charter membership is for prestige b) The Sol Katz Award c) we should have some other badge system d) other The number of Charter members should be a) restricted to some low number b) only be constrained by the number of good candidates available c) other _ and other questions regarding the types and nature of OSGeo membership I do believe that Charter members play an important role guarding against the extremely unlikely risk of a takeover. Other than that very minor role which can be achieved by several methods, I think that all OSGeo activities should be as open as possible to as many people as possible. Best regards, Eli [1] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership [52] http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Category:OSGeo_Member -- fewer than 1,000 people have bothered to register as Members [53] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_member_page_instruction On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Vasile Craciunescu vas...@geo-spatial.org wrote: Dear Cameron, Arnulf, Jeff and Gert-Jan, Thank you for your appreciations! It was an interesting
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections
Vasile, Great work pulling this together. We keep calling this discussion things like Charter member elections and addressing it during election periods. I think that topic is really something else, the nature and types of OSGeo Membership or something similar. If we evaluate our existing structure [1], I think that we can regard Participants as a resounding success (there are 10,000+ involved on the email lists, projects, events, etc). Just as the Participants are a success, I think that Members are a near complete failure [52] [53] in their current form, I think that Charter Members are working well enough in that they seem to be achieving their purpose of being people dedicated to the OSGeo Mission, electing the Board and Charter members, and preventing the unlikely scenario of a takeover. Charter membership seems to be fraught with all sorts of additional connotation, confusion, differring perspectives, and debate. Based on this, I think that OSGeo should further our success with participants, end membership since it failed, and refine Charter so that is works better. What OSGeo membership and Charter membership has been unclear to many. Here is the explanation that I often give to people (some of whom have been using and contributing to OSGeo projects for 5+ years): Members simply self identify as members on the wiki. Charter members are nominated and elected. They do what they see fit when they see fit to further/support the goals and mission of OSGeo. It has also historically been a badge of honor for contributing good work. What a Charter Member is is a matter of endless debate but the very practical purpose is simple: The real practical purpose of Charter Members is to elect the Board of Directors (and more Charter Members). It is to prevent hostile takeover of the organization (or the organization's resources) since OSGeo other than voting for the Board and Charter Members, is open to all who find it, figure out how to participate, are inclined to participate, and feel welcome. By offering to nominate you as a Charter Member what I really think is that: 1) you support the OSGeo Mission and Goals (promote Open Source GIS software through the world) 2) you are sufficiently responsible and care enough to pay minimal attention twice per year to vote for the OSGeo Board of Directors and additional Charter Members 3) in the extremely unlikely scenario of a hostile takeover you would first be aware of it and secondly vote to prevent it --this is really the sole purpose of Charter Members but it is so unlikely that people forget this is the purpose and it is sort of a stupid purpose (even if necessary). In that regard, I think that the survey should include some questions like: OSGeo Membership should be more open/closed Agree or Disagree 1-10; 10 is strongly agree, 1 is strongly disagree The primary purpose of OSGeo Membership is: a) increase participation in OSGeo activities b) recognize substantial OSGeo contributors c) give members a sense of identity and cohesion d) other_ Maintaining some structure to prevent takeover of the organization is: a) a waste of time and effort b) worthwhile even if guarding against an unlikely event c) other_ Charter membership should be renamed to a) keep it as Charter b) voting members c) electors d) other _ Charter membership should not be used as an honor or mark of prestige instead those should be addressed by a) disagree, charter membership is for prestige b) The Sol Katz Award c) we should have some other badge system d) other The number of Charter members should be a) restricted to some low number b) only be constrained by the number of good candidates available c) other _ and other questions regarding the types and nature of OSGeo membership I do believe that Charter members play an important role guarding against the extremely unlikely risk of a takeover. Other than that very minor role which can be achieved by several methods, I think that all OSGeo activities should be as open as possible to as many people as possible. Best regards, Eli [1] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership [52] http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Category:OSGeo_Member -- fewer than 1,000 people have bothered to register as Members [53] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_member_page_instruction On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Vasile Craciunescu vas...@geo-spatial.org wrote: Dear Cameron, Arnulf, Jeff and Gert-Jan, Thank you for your appreciations! It was an interesting exercise of digital archeology :) Dear all, I'm waiting until tomorrow for more feedback/ideas. Then I will draft a survey, I will send you the questions and ask for your opinion and finally, if all agree, the survey will be sent to all charter members. Best, Vasile On 7/2/15 3:29 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: Thanks Vasile for all your excellent research. Great job (and an interesting read). Are you planning to
