Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some Local Chapters are going through this process currently, e.g. OSGeo-AustNZ. We will need to incorporate as a non profit within Australia with its overheads of audits, annual fees etc. One potential upside is that we may get some protection by way of Directors Insurance for people making decisions on behalf of OSGeo (or the local chapter). Bruce, Are you suggesting that the local chapter would be taking out directors insurance? At the OSGeo global level I believe we don't yet have directors insurance though we are looking into getting it (or perhaps we just got it recently). But that would not apply to local chapters which we make some effort to treat as separate entities to avoid cross-liability. For instance, we recently clarified that OSGeo local chapter representatives are not automatically OSGeo officers at the global level. So, my point is that local chapters should not assume that being an official chapter gives them any sort of insurance protection automatically. During the recent FOSS4G-2009 work, several of us were left high and dry with no protection from the parent body. This situation is not acceptable. Well, people need to judge acceptable risk, and act accordingly. In the past FOSS4G organizers have accepted the potential liability that comes with the role, with the exception that we generally have venue insurance for problems that occur on site during the conference (slip and fall, etc). Best regards, -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [EMAIL PROTECTED] light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush| President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12-Jun-08, at 9:20 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote: - Putting our policy online (presumably copied from Apache shamelessly) in a findable location, to conform to the legal norms of our host nation. I'll have to re-read Arnulf's note to understand more precisely what you are referring to here... we don't have the tax exemption in place yet, if that's what you mean. Sorry, I over-clipped. The export policy. P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Arnulf Christl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But instead, she incarnated in the US, the most backwater place imaginable wrt Open Source. So, this raises two actions items: - Putting our policy online (presumably copied from Apache shamelessly) in a findable location, to conform to the legal norms of our host nation. - Having a plan to take better advantage of our host nation status. We pay a good deal in terms of administrative overhead to be a fully tax-exempt charity in the USofA, what fund raising plans have we linked to that status? Is that status gaining us anything at all, at this point? The only connection I have *ever* heard was Michael Tiemann saying he'd only contribute if he could get a US tax write-off. Both these actions items fall to you, Tyler, could you give us an update? BTW, one of the things at Refractions that made tasking more visible for go do this roles, like the sysadmin, was entering absolutely every request and job into Trac before fulfilling it. Does anyone thing a OSGeo trac would help or hinder? It might get a little stuffed up with irrelevancies, but it would at least raise the visibility of things that need to be done. I assume SAC is already running one of their own? P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
Aside I interrupt here to point out that of late the Board has been faced with some significant questions about the aim and scope of our organization. This is a good thing: it is what the Board is there for. We the Charter Members are tasked with electing new board members shortly, and thus have a chance to directly influsence those discussions. I look forward to seeing those nominated put forward their positions on these issues so we can all vote knowledgably. /Aside -mpg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Ramsey Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:28 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Arnulf Christl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One critique is that the board of directors does not make decisions easily and quickly which could be seen as a weakness (chickens) [1]. A consensus decision making process necessarily limits the scope of an organization to the minimal vision, the place where everyone's beliefs intersect, which can be quite small indeed. Tyler has been doing well at rolling in some sponsors over the last months, I hope that as ED he feels he can bring some proposals forward in the coming months to spend that money and some of the FOSS4G money in effective ways. That you see our inability to do things as a good thing only speaks to your minimalist vision, what you want to do, and what OSGeo can do, line up pretty OK, I guess. I see OSGeo pissing away chances to galvanize open source in the marketplace, to spur the kind of credibility that will float all our boats. You say potato, I say potato. P. ___ 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
Interesting Aside. Could the CRO perhaps ensure there's a way to QA with the board nominees during the process? Perhaps a list of questions at the top of the wiki page, and nominees can answer as few/many of them as they like in their own page sections. P On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Michael P. Gerlek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aside I interrupt here to point out that of late the Board has been faced with some significant questions about the aim and scope of our organization. This is a good thing: it is what the Board is there for. We the Charter Members are tasked with electing new board members shortly, and thus have a chance to directly influsence those discussions. I look forward to seeing those nominated put forward their positions on these issues so we can all vote knowledgably. /Aside ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
2008/6/12 Paul Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Interesting Aside. Could the CRO perhaps ensure there's a way to QA with the board nominees during the process? Perhaps a list of questions at the top of the wiki page, and nominees can answer as few/many of them as they like in their own page sections. This is getting close to what Debian does (no prejudice) I guess it is just the best way to run such a diverse community (both Debian and US) FYI: The Debian Constitution has procedures for election that are quite sane: http://www.us.debian.org/devel/constitution#5 -- Paulo Marcondes = PU1/PU2PIX -22.915 -42.224 = GG86jc ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Arnulf Christl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I for one get this feedback on a regular basis from parts of the German speaking community. This sentiment has lead to a lot of discussion within the GaV which is the existing German FOSSGIS community, a legal entity incorporated in 2001-01-18. It was felt that OSGeo (Main?, Int'l?) was too US (North American) centric in its mindset. I think the Brazilian community probably has a stronger beef than the Germans, but I don't see how anything short of a babelfish is going to resolve the fairly intractable barrier of language to the growth of communities of shared interest. If most of the participants in a group are of a shared background, that cultural and linguistic background will dominate the conversation. If there were more Germans involved, there would be a more German perspective (heaven forfend). Chicken, meet egg. Are there concrete issues that can address this, because I'm not going to get worked up over matters of perception that are out of my control. I cannot make more Germans join, and I cannot become German myself through sheer force of will. P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On 2008/06/12 8:56 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote: Anyway. Another triviality we need to address are export restrictions. Due to formal reasons OSGeo was required to incorporate[4]. It could have been Togo - home of one of the most active and diverse spatial communities[5]. Or it could have been Switzerland, one of the most neutral (soccer looser) nations or it could have been Canada Many shipping companies have their ships registered under a flag of convenience. Should OSGeo consider setting sail in that direction? Are there practical matters (e.g. wording in the foundation's charter or letters of incorporation) that preclude OSGeo from being incorporated in multiple jurisdictions? -- Dave Patton CIS Canadian Information Systems Victoria, B.C. Degree Confluence Project: Canadian Coordinator Technical Coordinator http://www.confluence.org/ OSGeo FOSS4G2007 conference: Workshop Committee Chair Conference Committee member http://www.foss4g2007.org/ Personal website: Maps, GPS, etc. http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Dave Patton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are there practical matters (e.g. wording in the foundation's charter or letters of incorporation) that preclude OSGeo from being incorporated in multiple jurisdictions? Yes, it's work to be an entity. We're having enough trouble with the work involved in being an entity just one jurisdiction, adding more just adds more rules to follow and forms to submit. If the work involved and rules of the USA are too overwhelming, I could see changing to a different jurisdiction, but there would have to be a good reason to ditch all the effort invested thus far. P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
An Australian perspective, where we speak English almost exclusively: I'd like to think we can address most of these issues by focusing on: 1. Be true to OSGeo's core values, possibly update them where they are unclear. * We promote Open Source Software and Open content. * Engaging the international community is in our long term best interest as we will increase our developer base. 2. We are a Meritocracy: * Most of our funding comes from local organisations funding local developers. OSGeo has minimal influence how this money is spent. * If a local issue is important (like language) then it will be funded locally. 3. OSGeo is a not-for-profit: * If OSGeo starts chasing profits it will eventually lead to conflict of interest between the bottom line and OSGeo's principles. That said, OSGeo does have expenses and requires funding to continue, however we should endevour to put principles ahead of profit. In Australia and New Zealand, I haven't noticed the friction mentioned in other parts of the world, probably because we are not effected by export restrictions, and we speak English. I recently had issue with OSGeo being asked to put its name behind a conference about open source software, which used proprietary presentation material - but these concerns were ethical and not geographic. Australian is a local chapter which is in the process of incorporating into a legal entity so that it can be used to handle money. Our focus is on marketing OSGeo and the Open Source Geospatial stack. Arnulf Christl wrote: All, every now and then governance issues pop up in lists and on IRC. I will try to summarizes some of them for those of .us who do not follow all OSGeo communication that closely. One critique is that the board of directors does not make decisions easily and quickly which could be seen as a weakness (chickens) [1]. Another critique is that some members of the board block decisions due to philosophical[2] musings. It was suggested that in some cases it is better that the board take decisions even if they might be objected to by parts of the community. Some have argued that part of the sentiment underlying this kind of talk is a North American centric view of the world, namely this included Jo, Markus, Me, Myself and I. I for one get this feedback on a regular basis from parts of the German speaking community. This sentiment has lead to a lot of discussion within the GaV which is the existing German FOSSGIS community, a legal entity incorporated in 2001-01-18. It was felt that OSGeo (Main?, Int'l?) was too US (North American) centric in its mindset. What do other local communities think about this? And how do you voice your opinion? Do you have a legal representative within OSGeo to voice your concerns? How do you go about this? I believe that some of the sentiment and philosophical musings that has lead to the Board not being very decisive in some matters is actually a good sign and shows that the board is conscious of the mission impossible she has taken on trying to represent the highly diverse community of all Geo-FOSS folks in the world. From my perspective OSGeo (intl, Main, HQ, ?) should try to be the meta level organizational umbrella and should thus also refrain from meddling with local issues as best it can. This includes by far and large all commercial activities. I can only foresee many unresolvable problems coming upon us if we do start to go commercial. Whenever we say We, we must be conscious of who We are. The danger for people steering OSGeo is to confuse Me with We. Its so easy: you only have to flip the W in We to make it turn into a Me. Ugh. This looks very much like a Warnock[3]. My hope is that someone will share some more insights from another perspective. I'd like the board and the NA cabal and all see that there *is* a rest of the world - and that incidentally the others are always in the majority. Anyway. Another triviality we need to address are export restrictions. Due to formal reasons OSGeo was required to incorporate[4]. It could have been Togo - home of one of the most active and diverse spatial communities[5]. Or it could have been Switzerland, one of the most neutral (soccer looser) nations or it could have been Canada, home of our president, ED and some of the best software developers OSGeo can muster and also home of our beloved elephant in a porcelain shop[0]. But instead, she incarnated in the US, the most backwater place imaginable wrt Open Source. Looking at the goals and mission of OSGeo it would have been more logic to incorporate on Earth but funny enough that is not a legal entity suitable for incorporation. It is an undisputed fact that Web communities are spatially unrestricted [6] If .us does not understand this - who on Earth ever could? From this world wide perspective US Export Restrictions are ridiculous and nothing but. But from a legal standp oint - and OSGeo (Int'l,
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On 12-Jun-08, at 9:20 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote: - Putting our policy online (presumably copied from Apache shamelessly) in a findable location, to conform to the legal norms of our host nation. I'll have to re-read Arnulf's note to understand more precisely what you are referring to here... we don't have the tax exemption in place yet, if that's what you mean. - Having a plan to take better advantage of our host nation status. We pay a good deal in terms of administrative overhead to be a fully tax-exempt charity in the USofA, what fund raising plans have we linked to that status? Is that status gaining us anything at all, at this point? The only connection I have *ever* heard was Michael Tiemann saying he'd only contribute if he could get a US tax write-off. Getting to the US tax-exempt status has taken more time than expected. We hired some help to handle the application process for us, but that hasn't sped up the proces too much. My latest update shows we are close to completing the application and getting into the approval queue after I answer a few more questions. That said, it will help any US donor on taxes - especially our US-based sponsors. It will also make it possible for us to apply for certain US-based grants/funding that require that status. Landon wrote: I've never seen any type of fundraising plan. Do we have one? If we want to take advantage of our tax-exempt status do we have a list of American companies that might be possible contributors and might also be interested in a tax write-off? Do we need to assemble a team to handle fund-raising efforts? Formal fundraising has been a challenge, though just defining what that means is a challenge. I started compiling my thoughts on the topic but didn't get them distributed. In so far as the conference, presentations, booths and one-on-one discussions go - we are fairly active in what ultimately ends up helping fundraising. There was a fundraising committee but it was tough to get moving. So its responsibilities were rolled back to the board. To help this I wanted to get a plan together but have been busy with other things. A team that is bigger than just the board and I, could be very helpful. Tyler ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
IMO: Paul, Some Local Chapters are going through this process currently, e.g. OSGeo-AustNZ. We will need to incorporate as a non profit within Australia with its overheads of audits, annual fees etc. One potential upside is that we may get some protection by way of Directors Insurance for people making decisions on behalf of OSGeo (or the local chapter). During the recent FOSS4G-2009 work, several of us were left high and dry with no protection from the parent body. This situation is not acceptable. Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 13/06/2008 03:28:31 AM: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Dave Patton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are there practical matters (e.g. wording in the foundation's charter or letters of incorporation) that preclude OSGeo from being incorporated in multiple jurisdictions? Yes, it's work to be an entity. We're having enough trouble with the work involved in being an entity just one jurisdiction, adding more just adds more rules to follow and forms to submit. If the work involved and rules of the USA are too overwhelming, I could see changing to a different jurisdiction, but there would have to be a good reason to ditch all the effort invested thus far. P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Notice: This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright.No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information contained in this email. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On 2008/06/12 5:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMO: Paul, Some Local Chapters are going through this process currently, e.g. OSGeo-AustNZ. We will need to incorporate as a non profit within Australia with its overheads of audits, annual fees etc. One potential upside is that we may get some protection by way of Directors Insurance for people making decisions on behalf of OSGeo (or the local chapter). During the recent FOSS4G-2009 work, several of us were left high and dry with no protection from the parent body. This situation is not acceptable. I understand what Bruce is referring to, but, depending on the relevant legislation, should an issue ever arise where 'the legal system' was potentially going to be involved, the lack of a Directors and Officers or Volunteers insurance policy may not leave people high and dry. Sometimes, legislation will protect people who provide services to an organization on a volunteer basis. The premise is that if such lay people are acting on a best effort basis to 'do the right thing', they are protected, even if it turns out they 'did the wrong thing'. -- Dave Patton CIS Canadian Information Systems Victoria, B.C. Degree Confluence Project: Canadian Coordinator Technical Coordinator http://www.confluence.org/ OSGeo FOSS4G2007 conference: Workshop Committee Chair Conference Committee member http://www.foss4g2007.org/ Personal website: Maps, GPS, etc. http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
