Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

[Mateusz Loskot]

I have filled the survey matching my answers ad close to my views as
possible but I also give +1 to agree with Frank's comments
3 sie 2015 18:39 "Frank Warmerdam"  napisał(a):

> Folks,
>
> For what it's worth, I also do not feel comfortable with completing
> the survey as it is currently structured as the structure forces me to
> give answers that don't really represent my views.
>
> For what it's worth I am in favor of:
>  - a modest number of charter members using something like the current
> process
>  - open membership
>  - no manditory membership fees
>  - make every effort to treat regular members the same as charter
> members except for the minimum voting stuff required to be legally
> distinct.
>
> Best regards,
> Frank
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jim Klassen  wrote:
> > I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before
> > OSGeo existed.  I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated
> > discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take.
> > The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very
> > important to me.
> >
> > However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly
> > the survey has me confused as to how I should respond.
> >
> > For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be
> > improved?  Where are the results of this survey going?  Does this survey
> > count as an official vote(s)?
> >
> > On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
> >> Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,
> >>
> >> Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet
> >> access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as
> >> Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on
> >> the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected
> >> that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board
> >> mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a
> >> dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to
> >> comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our
> >> Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please
> >> keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members
> >> and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills.
> >>
> >> Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method
> >> to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many
> >> years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new
> >> proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to
> >> include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo
> >> membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really
> >> flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the "board" and
> >> "discuss" mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different
> >> opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their
> >> ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the
> >> survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and
> >> not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question
> >> based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful
> >> for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization
> >> on the right track.
> >>
> >> Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!
> >> Vasile
> >>
> >> PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of
> >> them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.
> >>
> >> On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, 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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

[Dan Ames]

Count me has one who has "awoken". The survey has spawned an interesting
discussion. I hope to see the results shared at some point, even if not
everyone has participated. Maybe a threshold of charter member
participation should be met before the results are shared? This of course
would just be for information sake given that there are clearly issues with
the survey causing some not to participate as Frank has pointed out. - Dan

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:29 AM Milo van der Linden 
wrote:

> +1 Frank's statement
>
> It is a great summary and I also want to compliment OSGeo on maintaining
> diversity in Board and Officers both in country of origin and companies
> people work for in all these years, it is an organization I am proud to be
> a humble little part of.
>
> If there is something that I think could be better in the future it might
> be:
> - More women present in the board although this should go naturally and
> not forced
> - broader representation for Asia and Africa, but again, this should grow
> organic
>
> But that is just my opinion and I feel in no way privileged to tell others
> what to do.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Milo
> On Aug 3, 2015 6:44 PM, "Stephen Woodbridge" 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 Frank's statement is exactly what I would like to see also.
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>> On 8/3/2015 12:39 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, I also do not feel comfortable with completing
>>> the survey as it is currently structured as the structure forces me to
>>> give answers that don't really represent my views.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth I am in favor of:
>>>   - a modest number of charter members using something like the current
>>> process
>>>   - open membership
>>>   - no manditory membership fees
>>>   - make every effort to treat regular members the same as charter
>>> members except for the minimum voting stuff required to be legally
>>> distinct.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jim Klassen 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before
 OSGeo existed.  I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated
 discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take.
 The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very
 important to me.

 However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly
 the survey has me confused as to how I should respond.

 For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be
 improved?  Where are the results of this survey going?  Does this survey
 count as an official vote(s)?

 On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:

> Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,
>
> Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet
> access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as
> Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on
> the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected
> that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board
> mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a
> dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to
> comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our
> Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please
> keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members
> and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills.
>
> Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method
> to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many
> years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new
> proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to
> include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo
> membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really
> flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the "board" and
> "discuss" mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different
> opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their
> ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the
> survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and
> not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question
> based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful
> for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization
> on the right track.
>
> Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!
> Vasile
>
> PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of
> them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.
>
> On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
>
>> Hi Vassile,
>>
>> This survey appears t

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

[Milo van der Linden]

+1 Frank's statement

It is a great summary and I also want to compliment OSGeo on maintaining
diversity in Board and Officers both in country of origin and companies
people work for in all these years, it is an organization I am proud to be
a humble little part of.

If there is something that I think could be better in the future it might
be:
- More women present in the board although this should go naturally and not
forced
- broader representation for Asia and Africa, but again, this should grow
organic

But that is just my opinion and I feel in no way privileged to tell others
what to do.

Kind regards,

Milo
On Aug 3, 2015 6:44 PM, "Stephen Woodbridge" 
wrote:

> +1 Frank's statement is exactly what I would like to see also.
>
> -Steve
>
> On 8/3/2015 12:39 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> For what it's worth, I also do not feel comfortable with completing
>> the survey as it is currently structured as the structure forces me to
>> give answers that don't really represent my views.
>>
>> For what it's worth I am in favor of:
>>   - a modest number of charter members using something like the current
>> process
>>   - open membership
>>   - no manditory membership fees
>>   - make every effort to treat regular members the same as charter
>> members except for the minimum voting stuff required to be legally
>> distinct.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jim Klassen  wrote:
>>
>>> I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before
>>> OSGeo existed.  I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated
>>> discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take.
>>> The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very
>>> important to me.
>>>
>>> However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly
>>> the survey has me confused as to how I should respond.
>>>
>>> For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be
>>> improved?  Where are the results of this survey going?  Does this survey
>>> count as an official vote(s)?
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
>>>
 Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,

 Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet
 access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as
 Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on
 the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected
 that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board
 mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a
 dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to
 comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our
 Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please
 keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members
 and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills.

 Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method
 to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many
 years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new
 proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to
 include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo
 membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really
 flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the "board" and
 "discuss" mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different
 opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their
 ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the
 survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and
 not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question
 based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful
 for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization
 on the right track.

 Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!
 Vasile

 PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of
 them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.

 On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, 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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

[Edwin Liava'a]

+1 Frank's statement is exactly what I would like to see also.

Edwin

On 8/3/15, Stephen Woodbridge  wrote:
> +1 Frank's statement is exactly what I would like to see also.
>
> -Steve
>
> On 8/3/2015 12:39 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> For what it's worth, I also do not feel comfortable with completing
>> the survey as it is currently structured as the structure forces me to
>> give answers that don't really represent my views.
>>
>> For what it's worth I am in favor of:
>>   - a modest number of charter members using something like the current
>> process
>>   - open membership
>>   - no manditory membership fees
>>   - make every effort to treat regular members the same as charter
>> members except for the minimum voting stuff required to be legally
>> distinct.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jim Klassen  wrote:
>>> I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before
>>> OSGeo existed.  I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated
>>> discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take.
>>> The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very
>>> important to me.
>>>
>>> However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly
>>> the survey has me confused as to how I should respond.
>>>
>>> For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be
>>> improved?  Where are the results of this survey going?  Does this survey
>>> count as an official vote(s)?
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
 Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,

 Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet
 access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as
 Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on
 the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected
 that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board
 mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a
 dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to
 comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our
 Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please
 keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members
 and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills.

 Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method
 to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many
 years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new
 proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to
 include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo
 membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really
 flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the "board" and
 "discuss" mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different
 opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their
 ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the
 survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and
 not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question
 based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful
 for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization
 on the right track.

 Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!
 Vasile

 PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of
 them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.

 On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, 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
> a

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi Frank,

If anything, I see this survey already as a success: many charter 
members who have not spoken in so long have awoken on this list and 
voiced their passionate opinions about the OSGeo foundation.  This to me 
is very valuable (and why I have remained mostly quiet on this, since we 
can't always have 1 or 2 voices for the entire organization).  So I 
still see this as a success, and am very appreciative for Vasile in 
taking all this time to create the survey.


There will be lots of good information to process.  (and most of it, as 
you noted, won't be recorded in a spreadsheet)


-jeff



On 2015-08-03 1:39 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

Folks,

For what it's worth, I also do not feel comfortable with completing
the survey as it is currently structured as the structure forces me to
give answers that don't really represent my views.

For what it's worth I am in favor of:
  - a modest number of charter members using something like the current process
  - open membership
  - no manditory membership fees
  - make every effort to treat regular members the same as charter
members except for the minimum voting stuff required to be legally
distinct.

Best regards,
Frank



On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jim Klassen  wrote:

I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before
OSGeo existed.  I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated
discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take.
The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very
important to me.

However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly
the survey has me confused as to how I should respond.

For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be
improved?  Where are the results of this survey going?  Does this survey
count as an official vote(s)?

On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:

Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,

Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet
access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as
Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on
the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected
that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board
mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a
dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to
comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our
Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please
keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members
and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills.

Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method
to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many
years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new
proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to
include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo
membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really
flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the "board" and
"discuss" mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different
opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their
ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the
survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and
not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question
based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful
for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization
on the right track.

Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!
Vasile

PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of
them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.

On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, 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, b

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

[Stephen Woodbridge]

+1 Frank's statement is exactly what I would like to see also.

-Steve

On 8/3/2015 12:39 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

Folks,

For what it's worth, I also do not feel comfortable with completing
the survey as it is currently structured as the structure forces me to
give answers that don't really represent my views.

For what it's worth I am in favor of:
  - a modest number of charter members using something like the current process
  - open membership
  - no manditory membership fees
  - make every effort to treat regular members the same as charter
members except for the minimum voting stuff required to be legally
distinct.

Best regards,
Frank



On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jim Klassen  wrote:

I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before
OSGeo existed.  I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated
discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take.
The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very
important to me.

However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly
the survey has me confused as to how I should respond.

For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be
improved?  Where are the results of this survey going?  Does this survey
count as an official vote(s)?

On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:

Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,

Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet
access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as
Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on
the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected
that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board
mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a
dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to
comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our
Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please
keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members
and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills.

Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method
to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many
years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new
proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to
include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo
membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really
flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the "board" and
"discuss" mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different
opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their
ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the
survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and
not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question
based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful
for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization
on the right track.

Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!
Vasile

PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of
them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.

On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, 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
que

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

[Frank Warmerdam]

Folks,

For what it's worth, I also do not feel comfortable with completing
the survey as it is currently structured as the structure forces me to
give answers that don't really represent my views.

For what it's worth I am in favor of:
 - a modest number of charter members using something like the current process
 - open membership
 - no manditory membership fees
 - make every effort to treat regular members the same as charter
members except for the minimum voting stuff required to be legally
distinct.

Best regards,
Frank



On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jim Klassen  wrote:
> I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before
> OSGeo existed.  I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated
> discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take.
> The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very
> important to me.
>
> However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly
> the survey has me confused as to how I should respond.
>
> For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be
> improved?  Where are the results of this survey going?  Does this survey
> count as an official vote(s)?
>
> On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
>> Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,
>>
>> Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet
>> access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as
>> Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on
>> the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected
>> that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board
>> mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a
>> dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to
>> comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our
>> Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please
>> keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members
>> and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills.
>>
>> Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method
>> to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many
>> years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new
>> proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to
>> include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo
>> membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really
>> flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the "board" and
>> "discuss" mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different
>> opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their
>> ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the
>> survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and
>> not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question
>> based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful
>> for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization
>> on the right track.
>>
>> Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!
>> Vasile
>>
>> PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of
>> them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.
>>
>> On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, 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 w

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

[Jim Klassen]

I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before
OSGeo existed.  I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated
discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take. 
The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very
important to me.

However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly
the survey has me confused as to how I should respond.

For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be
improved?  Where are the results of this survey going?  Does this survey
count as an official vote(s)?

On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
> Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,
>
> Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet
> access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as
> Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on
> the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected
> that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board
> mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a
> dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to
> comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our
> Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please
> keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members
> and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills.
>
> Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method
> to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many
> years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new
> proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to
> include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo
> membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really
> flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the "board" and
> "discuss" mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different
> opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their
> ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the
> survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and
> not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question
> based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful
> for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization
> on the right track.
>
> Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!
> Vasile
>
> PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of
> them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.
>
> On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, 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 
>>> Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu 
>>> Date: Thursday, 30 July 2015 23:5

[OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Server grass.osgeo.org migrated to new hardware

[Jeff McKenna]

A nice news item to share with the whole community.  Big thanks to 
Martin, Alex and the OSGeo systems volunteers.


-jeff





 Forwarded Message 
Subject: [GRASS-user] Server grass.osgeo.org migrated to new hardware
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:17:43 +0200
From: Markus Neteler
To: GRASS developers list , GRASS user list 



Dear all,

thanks to Martin Spott with support of Alex Mandel and the OSUOSL team
hosting also the new OSGeo machine, the grass.osgeo.org server was
migrated over this weekend.

The CMS and the Wiki are way faster now!

Best,
Markus

PS: Please report any malfunctioning to me in order to fix it over the
next days.
___
grass-user mailing list
grass-u...@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user






___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

[Vasile Craciunescu]

Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,

Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet 
access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as Steven 
already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on the survey 
before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected that our 
Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board mailing list and 
following the topics there. Perhaps we need a dedicated mailing list for 
our Charter members or the invitation to comment on the survey should be 
also sent individually to all our Charter members. Not sure about the 
right approach. Anyway, please keep in mind that this is the first time 
we are polling our members and we still have to learn and adjust our 
communication skills.


Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method to 
select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many 
years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new 
proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to 
include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo membership. 
That's how the survey was created. The survey is really flawed if is not 
connected with the discussions on the "board" and "discuss" mailing 
lists. Different people, different angles, different opinions... But 
only a fraction of our members expressed their ideas/questions/opinions 
before assembling the survey. That's why the survey looks heterogeneous. 
I did my best to merge similar topics and not to include redundant 
questions. I also did not remove any question based on my own judgement. 
Anyway, I find this exercise very useful for our community. We should 
discuss further to keep our organization on the right track.


Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!
Vasile

PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of 
them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.


On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, 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 

Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu 
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




--
-
Vasile Crăciunescu
geo-spatial.org: An elegant place for sharing geoKnowledge & geoData
http://www.geo-spatial.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/geo-spatial
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo 2.0 = QO_SGeo with flagship Orientation 2.0

[Munich Orientation Convention]

 

 

Hi Michael,

 

if you have a problem, think big.

 

Basing on the invention Orientation 2.0, I'd like to propose to launch the
Quite Open OSGeo as a standardization board respectively monopolist

www.volksnav.de/monopole/monopolist.pdf which - similar to ISO, DENIC etc. -
grants licenses to commercial users. The 6 billion private users would be
considered as bagatelle.

 

With this strategy, this intellectual property can generate US$ 50 billion
within 10 years, so there would be no more need for voluntary activities.  

 

This orientation standard could be used: 

 

-  as a global metrical alternative to lat/lon www.watchrose.com 

-  to address towns, crossings, mines, islands, volcanos etc. in
small countries like Burundi www.volksnav.de/Burundi or Cuba
www.volksnav.de/r100Cuba 

-  to address touristic attractions, see www.ManausOnline.com click
Turismo / Pontos Turisticos  

-  by the blind to find the right station www.volksnav.de/TokyoMetro
www.volksnav.de/blindInTokyo and the right entrance/exit
www.volksnav.de/PennStation.   

-  to unify Twin Citieswww.volksnav.de/NiagaraFalls
www.volksnav.de/TwinCities 

-  to address objects within a room (premium exhibitions), 

-  to address buildings within a property. During the 9/11
catastrophe, additional panic arose because the rescuers didn't know which
one was the tower 1 or 2.

-  to address points on a screen, picture etc. In this case r100
isn't round and means 100%

-  to minimize right/left and east/west ( Ost/West ) ( leste/oeste )
confusions. The Costa Concordia accident happened because a right/left
confusion during 8 seconds. The captain gave instructions in Italian
language (destra/sinistra), the steersman was Indonesian.  

-  to eliminate a fundamental weak point on signage and electronics
www.volksnav.de/VP 

-  for evacuation etc. through loudspeakers, megaphones or mobile
phones (Orientation Esperanto) 

-  by children to seek eastern eggs or find the right emergency
exit. I've tested this with street children and hidden coins on Copacabana
beach sand. Most of them can read a clock and all they know that radius 15
is more outwards than r10. Umbilicus Urbis (navel of the world) was during
1.000 years the mileage of the roads of the Roman Empire. This is nothing
but a radius. 

-  to make smarter and sharpen the orientation sense

 

etc. etc. I'm proposing this monopole to big companies (youtube: Google's
next quantum jump?) to $ 15 mi but they prefer to wait a little and pay $
500 mi ( to QOSGeo end of the year? ).

 

There is nothing to invest, only to decide how to share the incomes. I'm
sure, a lot of secondary inventions will arise.  

 

Is there anyone who also can think big?

 

Henrique

First they ignore you,

then they laugh at you,

then they fight you,

then you win. 

(Mahatma Gandhi)

 

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss