Good food for thought Howard, can’t say I disagree with anything you say here.
The only thing we need to consider is that for some countries 50 or 70 USD can
still be a lot of money.
Best regards,
Bart
On 23 Jun 2014, at 16:12, Howard Butler how...@hobu.co wrote:
On Jun 20, 2014, at 7:38
On Jun 23, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl wrote:
Good food for thought Howard, can’t say I disagree with anything you say here.
The only thing we need to consider is that for some countries 50 or 70 USD
can still be a lot of money
Yes. Something equitable could be
+1 for dues. I would sign up.
On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Howard Butler how...@hobu.co wrote:
On Jun 23, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl wrote:
Good food for thought Howard, can’t say I disagree with anything you say
here.
The only thing we need to consider
On 6/23/14 9:25 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
Good food for thought Howard, can’t say I disagree with anything you say here.
The only thing we need to consider is that for some countries 50 or 70 USD can
still be a lot of money.
All,
I also agree whole heartily with Howard.
Regarding the
Membership dues for OSGeo could very well work, but they would change the
nature of the organization. While it makes sense for those who are
professionals and thus want to belong to professional organizations, many
OSGeo members are not professionals in the sense of depending upon
OSGeo's projects
I’ve not been following this issue closely, so I just went back through the old
mails and I’m still left with this rather basic question:
What is the problem that we are trying to solve? What started this movement?
What in our organization is “broken” that needs to be fixed?
-mpg
AAG has a sliding income scale, no reason something like that, or a
hamburger index multiplier, can't be used to fix that up.
http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index
P.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl wrote:
Good food for thought Howard, can’t say
On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Michael P. Gerlek m...@flaxen.com wrote:
I’ve not been following this issue closely, so I just went back through the
old mails and I’m still left with this rather basic question:
What is the problem that we are trying to solve?
OSGeo's membership process is
On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, P Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com wrote:
Membership dues for OSGeo could very well work, but they would change the
nature of the organization.
Yes, that may be true, however it is also true that OSGeo as an organization
has significantly evolved significantly two or
Howard,
I’ve wanted membership dues to happen for a long time, but haven’t been able to
express it as eloquently or as persuasively as you just did.
Mark
On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Howard Butler how...@hobu.co wrote:
On Jun 20, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Cameron Shorter
All,
nice to have this discussion brought on table, finally.
Some local chapters already collect fees for their membership.
So OSGeo may collect a percentage of perceived fees.
Obviously, this should be discussed and defined by local chapters.
It may lead to increasing the current membership
On Jun 23, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Howard Butler how...@hobu.co wrote:
Do you lose a significant benefit by not being a Charter Member? Just the
ability to vote for the board and the ability to tout your exclusivity on a
vita/resume. Anything else? Lack of membership does not prevent anyone
On Jun 23, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 23, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Howard Butler how...@hobu.co wrote:
Do you lose a significant benefit by not being a Charter Member? Just the
ability to vote for the board and the ability to tout your exclusivity
On 06/23/2014 11:01 AM, Dimitris Kotzinos wrote:
Dear Cameron,
thanks for the reply and the comments to my previous e-mail. It also
gave me a chance to revisit the rules around the charter members.
I was expecting this issue to be further discussed within the community
and i am a bit
On 06/19/2014 11:58 AM, Peter Baumann wrote:
Hi all,
good - and important! - discussion!
Being Charter Member I am somewhat concerned:
- I am surprised that the common democratic procedure of election is
perceived as creating dissent.
Well it's somewhat conjecture without public
I am very dissapointed in this whole membership/fees discussion. In
reading the emails one does not see the international volunteer community
I would like to think OSGEO is (should be), but it rather seems we are
dealing with a US-based professional organisation, mostly keen on not
paying US
(just using my buddy Hobu as a foil here...)
So, the membership process is broken because it is ad hoc, difficult to
coordinate, and so on? Agreed!
And there are only two benefits to “membership: voting for the board and
personal PR? Agreed!
The personal PR one doesn’t count for much with me.
I think that might be a slight misunderstanding. We are an international
organization, our main funding accounts happen to be subject to US law
currently.
The main funds used to seed FOSS4g each year come from this, which 2/3+
of the time is outside the US. Exhibition packs to local chapters
Thanks for your feedback Dimitris,
You have made some valuable comments.
I'm also surprised that there has only been a few comments on this
thread, although I'm hopeful that this equates to a general feeling that
the proposal as crafted is reasonably close to group opinion.
The proposal as it
Ah, I replied to this email (from my osgeo-board inbox) before reading
the rest of my emails from my osgeo-discuss inbox. I see there has been
a lot of discussion about this proposal in the last 12 hrs.
I'm still of the opinion that charter membership is most valuable when
provided to
20 matches
Mail list logo
