Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations
+1 to Frank's summary, D. On 03-08-15 22:04, Mateusz Loskot wrote: 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 warmer...@pobox.com mailto:warmer...@pobox.com 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 klassen...@gmail.com mailto:klassen...@gmail.com 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:
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations
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 c...@osgeo.org Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu c...@osgeo.org 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations
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 c...@osgeo.org Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu c...@osgeo.org 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations
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 m...@dogodigi.net 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 wood...@swoodbridge.com 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 klassen...@gmail.com 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations
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 klassen...@gmail.com 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 questions at the beginning.
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations
+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 klassen...@gmail.com 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,
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations
+1 Frank's statement is exactly what I would like to see also. Edwin On 8/3/15, Stephen Woodbridge wood...@swoodbridge.com 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 klassen...@gmail.com 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations
+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 wood...@swoodbridge.com 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 klassen...@gmail.com 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations
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 warmer...@pobox.com 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 klassen...@gmail.com 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations
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 c...@osgeo.org Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu c...@osgeo.org 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations
I think Bruce has put some of my concerns about the questions into good examples the resonate with my concerns. For example: I am a long time contributor to multiple OSGeo projects and have mentored some smaller projects that are not OSGeo projects yet but are key pieces of GIS infrastructure. I have invested a lot of time and effort and as a consultant, being able claim I'm a Charter Member gives me some marketing credibility. I would like to vote for both general membership and meritorious membership, or to say both exclusive and inclusive membership classes and we might want a third class sponsorship class of membership. Given the amount of time I invest in OSGeo including being a GSoC Mentor for 6-7 years which benefited OSGeo financially, I find it hard to vote for membership dues. I know this is a complex issues and everyone has an opinion, so more power to you for taking on this task. If you can do anything to address these types of concerns that would make this survey all the more valuable. Maybe do not force a sequence of questions and let each question stand on its own with an other write in field. Best regards, -Steve On 7/30/2015 8:07 PM, 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 c...@osgeo.org mailto:c...@osgeo.org Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu c...@osgeo.org mailto:c...@osgeo.org 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 ___ 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
I'd love to see OSGeo evolve into a professional organization not entirely unlike ASME, ASCE, IEEE, etc. These organizations charge nominal membership dues usually at different levels depending on the person's status (professional, student, developing country, etc.). All regular members can vote for the officers. Officers run the programs of the society. It's a well established model. - Dan On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:39 PM Stephen Woodbridge wood...@swoodbridge.com wrote: I think Bruce has put some of my concerns about the questions into good examples the resonate with my concerns. For example: I am a long time contributor to multiple OSGeo projects and have mentored some smaller projects that are not OSGeo projects yet but are key pieces of GIS infrastructure. I have invested a lot of time and effort and as a consultant, being able claim I'm a Charter Member gives me some marketing credibility. I would like to vote for both general membership and meritorious membership, or to say both exclusive and inclusive membership classes and we might want a third class sponsorship class of membership. Given the amount of time I invest in OSGeo including being a GSoC Mentor for 6-7 years which benefited OSGeo financially, I find it hard to vote for membership dues. I know this is a complex issues and everyone has an opinion, so more power to you for taking on this task. If you can do anything to address these types of concerns that would make this survey all the more valuable. Maybe do not force a sequence of questions and let each question stand on its own with an other write in field. Best regards, -Steve On 7/30/2015 8:07 PM, 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 c...@osgeo.org mailto:c...@osgeo.org Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu c...@osgeo.org mailto:c...@osgeo.org 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 ___ 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
