Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Geographic Diversity
Hi Frank Frank Warmerdam wrote: I've yet to return to some of the interesting email since I went away on the challenges in the developing world (though many of them - at a glance - seems similar to the challenges we face in the developed world). Think are reffering to the e-mail from our colleagues in India. I would not consider India to be a part of the developing world as far as ICT is concerned. Large part of the proprietary software is developed in India. Lot happening in the FOSS too, largest Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop(SLED)Impementation in the world is in India at ELCOT(Government of Tamil Nadu). ELCOT has deployed SLED at 40,000 desktops across the state. The success story is now posted in a video prepared by ELCOT on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_g72GcaIdc The video is about 10 minutes in length. Quite impressive!! I think the major problems in promoting OSGeo tools is many countries is to do with education, lack of textbooks (I mean hard copy. e-books cannot work for everyone everywhere), and lack of data for the students to play with. The quality of soultions and cost-savings that could be acheived through adoption of OSGeo need to be more agressively promoted. Success stories of OSGeo based applications also need to be highlighted in a manner similar to ELCOT. Regards Venka ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Geographic Diversity
P Kishor wrote: ... Now I go back to my remaining mangoes of the season here in the still hot Lucknow, India. Just back form India, myself. Hope you have time to look up the OSGeo folks in India (Hyderabad, Pune). Venka ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Geographic Diversity
P Kishor wrote: Hi all, I would love hear from others about what they think of geography-based Board seats. Please weigh in. Puneet, I'm coming to this late. It is my opinion that hard coding specific numbers of board seats from specific geographic locales is not a great idea for some of the reasons already mentioned. However, I strongly encourage voters to treat geographic, gender, project and other forms of desirable diversity as a criteria when voting for charter members and board members. I think Tyler's point that being on the board is not necessary for meaningful involvement is important. Also, I think it is clear from this thread that it is important that the board, regardless of composition, acts to support our goals for foss4g use all around the world. I've yet to return to some of the interesting email since I went away on the challenges in the developing world (though many of them - at a glance - seems similar to the challenges we face in the developed world). 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] Board Geographic Diversity
P Kishor wrote: I believe pegging Board-membership to geography is a good thing I also believe that while one can contribute as much while being an ordinary member as opposed to a charter or a Board member (I became a charter member only a couple of months ago), Board membership could be an important label to find local support. After all, if there were no difference then why even have these different labels? When one is going around drumming up support, having a position carries a heft. Perhaps there is some resistance to artificially creating a geographically diverse Board, but who say that is the only option? There could be OSGeo Regional Representatives, who are elected, and who, by definition, represent specific geographic regions, without those people necessarily also being board members. They could have an advisory role to the Board. -- Dave Patton Degree Confluence Project: Canadian Coordinator Technical Coordinator http://www.confluence.org/ FOSS4G2007: Workshop Committee Conference Committee 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] Board Geographic Diversity
On 8/17/07, Dave Patton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P Kishor wrote: I believe pegging Board-membership to geography is a good thing I also believe that while one can contribute as much while being an ordinary member as opposed to a charter or a Board member (I became a charter member only a couple of months ago), Board membership could be an important label to find local support. After all, if there were no difference then why even have these different labels? When one is going around drumming up support, having a position carries a heft. Perhaps there is some resistance to artificially creating a geographically diverse Board, but who say that is the only option? There could be OSGeo Regional Representatives, who are elected, and who, by definition, represent specific geographic regions, without those people necessarily also being board members. They could have an advisory role to the Board. a rose by any other name... should work well as far as I am concerned. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Geographic Diversity
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 20:54 -0700, Dave Patton wrote: P Kishor wrote: I believe pegging Board-membership to geography is a good thing I also believe that while one can contribute as much while being an ordinary member as opposed to a charter or a Board member (I became a charter member only a couple of months ago), Board membership could be an important label to find local support. After all, if there were no difference then why even have these different labels? When one is going around drumming up support, having a position carries a heft. Perhaps there is some resistance to artificially creating a geographically diverse Board, but who say that is the only option? There could be OSGeo Regional Representatives, who are elected, and who, by definition, represent specific geographic regions, without those people necessarily also being board members. They could have an advisory role to the Board. Just to add my own $0.02, Like so many others I am firmly of the opinion that designated regional seats on the board is a /really bad idea/. If there is strong regional grassroots activity, then board makeup will over time will reflect this. IMHO Dave's suggestion has some serious merit, with a slight change; If we have healthy local chapters, I don't see why the chapter chairs (or whatever they are called) can't fill this role. They're presumably selected in a manner acceptable to those they represent, probably reasonably active and would be a good fit as regional reps. I'm not sure how formal we should make it, but it makes sense to me as a functional solution. Regards, Tim Bowden ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Geographic Diversity
On 11-Aug-07, at 7:51 AM, P Kishor wrote: On 8/10/07, Steve Lime [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all: Perhaps this has been discussed before, but... Given the apparent desire to maintain geographic diversity amongst OSgeo leadership perhaps in the future we might consider regionally based board seats. This is absolutely the most wonderful, workable, and simplest idea to this problem. I'm not convinced that enforced geographic distribution at the board level is the best, though I acknowledge the value of the diversity and the need to make the organisation sensitive to particular geographic needs. Implementing a geographically diverse board may be truly hard and is quite arbitrary. I believe local chapters would need to develop further first, so they would provide the nominees or choose who would represent them on a board. However, it pre-supposes that there are leaders available in all regions, that they are the best (however you define that) to lead the organisation and that those leaders are even involved in a local chapter. Will this always be the case? It's pretty hard to say... Distributed geographic representation sounds good to us because we know geography is important - but it is still as arbitrary as saying we need equal representation from business vs. academia, or programmers vs. hobbyists, or distribution of languages, etc. Instead, I would suggest something like an international congress that is made up of the chair of each local chapter, plus the main board. It would be the OSGeo UN and meet several times per year, with decisions guiding final board decisions. It would be an ideal way of having interaction between local chapters and the main organisation that might not otherwise happen. This allows more people to become known and their leadership potential recognised more broadly. It would be natural to that some members of the congress would end up running for board positions in the future. This is just some rough brainstorming, please don't take it too seriously, but thought I'd share some of my personal reflections on the topic. Tyler ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Geographic Diversity
I think it's a terrible idea, unless we really consider geography to be the true organizing principle behind OSGeo. Why not project-based board seats? Or language? Ethnicity? How about all three! We can have a matrix board. First, is there a problem: is our board representation bad relative to our membership and goals? If you can clearly articulate a problem, perhaps we can discuss solutions, but slaving board representation to geography is a Big Hammer, so it better be the Most Important Thing we care about. P. On 13-Aug-07, at 11:06 AM, P Kishor wrote: Hi all, I would love hear from others about what they think of geography-based Board seats. Please weigh in. PS: If anyone is CDG tomorrow morning at 8.20a local time, page me, but make sure to wear your OSGeo swag so I can recognize you... I'll be there for two hours waiting for my flight to DEL. On 8/11/07, P Kishor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/10/07, Steve Lime [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all: Perhaps this has been discussed before, but... Given the apparent desire to maintain geographic diversity amongst OSgeo leadership perhaps in the future we might consider regionally based board seats. This is absolutely the most wonderful, workable, and simplest idea to this problem. When I was casting my vote, I had little to go on. One vote went to someone who I have met personally, if only briefly (that person won the election). One vote went to someone from a geographic area other than Europe/NA (that person did not win). The other votes were based on my recollection of their contribution to the mailing lists, software, activism, and somewhat on the nomination write-ups. It is hard to compare someone who writes code (I don't as much... at least, not basic code) to someone who evangelizes (I do a lot of that... I just spent the entire morning yesterday giving a presentation on open geospatial at the World Bank... it was received with a lot of enthusiasm and interest). Having regionally allocated board seats would cut down on some of this comparison problem, and it would also ensure representation from around the world, from regions that are different levels in diffusion and adoption, and hence, need different kinds of work and involvement. Thanks Steve, for suggesting this... I wholeheartedly second this. That is, you have representatives from: North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, South/Central America and Oceania If the bulk of activity is in North America and Europe then given them two seats. Then you have nominations within a region and so on... Every other year different geographic regions would be up for re-election. As a voting member you'd vote for candidates in each region. If organizational affiliation diversity is more important (government vs. higher education vs. private sector vs. hobbyist) than geographic diversity then the same idea would apply. We do that here in Minnesota for our state GIS/LIS consortium board. That board also has an at-large seat open to anyone. Just a thought... Steve ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/education/ ST Policy Fellow, National Academy of Sciences http://www.nas.edu/ - collaborate, communicate, compete = -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/education/ ST Policy Fellow, National Academy of Sciences http://www.nas.edu/ - collaborate, communicate, compete = ___ 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] Board Geographic Diversity
The original post used geography as an initial example but also mentioned there are most certainly other balances that could make more sense - Steve On 8/13/2007 at 1:26 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11-Aug-07, at 7:51 AM, P Kishor wrote: On 8/10/07, Steve Lime [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all: Perhaps this has been discussed before, but... Given the apparent desire to maintain geographic diversity amongst OSgeo leadership perhaps in the future we might consider regionally based board seats. This is absolutely the most wonderful, workable, and simplest idea to this problem. I'm not convinced that enforced geographic distribution at the board level is the best, though I acknowledge the value of the diversity and the need to make the organisation sensitive to particular geographic needs. Implementing a geographically diverse board may be truly hard and is quite arbitrary. I believe local chapters would need to develop further first, so they would provide the nominees or choose who would represent them on a board. However, it pre-supposes that there are leaders available in all regions, that they are the best (however you define that) to lead the organisation and that those leaders are even involved in a local chapter. Will this always be the case? It's pretty hard to say... Distributed geographic representation sounds good to us because we know geography is important - but it is still as arbitrary as saying we need equal representation from business vs. academia, or programmers vs. hobbyists, or distribution of languages, etc. Instead, I would suggest something like an international congress that is made up of the chair of each local chapter, plus the main board. It would be the OSGeo UN and meet several times per year, with decisions guiding final board decisions. It would be an ideal way of having interaction between local chapters and the main organisation that might not otherwise happen. This allows more people to become known and their leadership potential recognised more broadly. It would be natural to that some members of the congress would end up running for board positions in the future. This is just some rough brainstorming, please don't take it too seriously, but thought I'd share some of my personal reflections on the topic. Tyler ___ 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] Board Geographic Diversity
On 8/10/07, Steve Lime [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all: Perhaps this has been discussed before, but... Given the apparent desire to maintain geographic diversity amongst OSgeo leadership perhaps in the future we might consider regionally based board seats. This is absolutely the most wonderful, workable, and simplest idea to this problem. When I was casting my vote, I had little to go on. One vote went to someone who I have met personally, if only briefly (that person won the election). One vote went to someone from a geographic area other than Europe/NA (that person did not win). The other votes were based on my recollection of their contribution to the mailing lists, software, activism, and somewhat on the nomination write-ups. It is hard to compare someone who writes code (I don't as much... at least, not basic code) to someone who evangelizes (I do a lot of that... I just spent the entire morning yesterday giving a presentation on open geospatial at the World Bank... it was received with a lot of enthusiasm and interest). Having regionally allocated board seats would cut down on some of this comparison problem, and it would also ensure representation from around the world, from regions that are different levels in diffusion and adoption, and hence, need different kinds of work and involvement. Thanks Steve, for suggesting this... I wholeheartedly second this. That is, you have representatives from: North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, South/Central America and Oceania If the bulk of activity is in North America and Europe then given them two seats. Then you have nominations within a region and so on... Every other year different geographic regions would be up for re-election. As a voting member you'd vote for candidates in each region. If organizational affiliation diversity is more important (government vs. higher education vs. private sector vs. hobbyist) than geographic diversity then the same idea would apply. We do that here in Minnesota for our state GIS/LIS consortium board. That board also has an at-large seat open to anyone. Just a thought... Steve ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/education/ ST Policy Fellow, National Academy of Sciences http://www.nas.edu/ - collaborate, communicate, compete = ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
