Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
Over the past weeks I've been busy with a) my Northwest-European holiday and b) watching the Fifa World Cup, so this is -a bit late- my entrance in this discussion. (for some reason my this message didn't reach this list earlier this week, I'll give it a second try) I think most of us recognize and agree to Dirk's feelings, thoughts and words. Having said so, I'd also to recall Dave Patton's observation, which I think gives a key to use this discussion to bring the OSGeo.org a step forward. Dave suggested to separate three issues: A) The Charter Member process. My 2 eurocents: for now we can advance with the election, for next year I'd like to see a discussion about both the role of the Charter Membership and a discussion about the CM-election process. Preferably in that order. B) Fees and memberships C) Fundraising. Once again my 2 eurocents: Assuming that fees are not primarily meant to keep people out of OSGeo.org, I would suggest to have a discussion about the need for fundraising (and its extent) first, and next a discussion about methods for fundraising (of which paid membership is just one possibility. An annual fee for the local chapters is another). And perhaps we could add a fourth issue D: the relationship between OSGeo.org, the projects and the local chapters. After being involved in the Dutch local chapter (Dutch as in the Dutch language, not as from the Netherlands) over the last 2.5 years, of which the last 11 months as chair of the Dutch board, I notice that the relationship between our local chapter and the OSGeo.org board is rather thin, even though one of the OSGeo.org board members (Bart) is Dutch-speaking. This might influence the discussion about the role of the Charter Members as well; I can imagine a set-up in which the Charter Membership is less personal based, but more like a House of Representatives in which each member represents a local chapter or a OSGeo project. Possibly supplemented with a few independent members. I therefore like to ask to board to organize these discussion in the next few months. The Foss4G conference (september) can be a help in scoping and starting these 3 of 4 discussions, so they can be finished by the end of the year, in which case the Charter Member elections 2015 can take place in a normal manner, without fuzz about the election process (which makes the CRO 2015 an easy job, volunteers anyone?) greetings from the LowLands, Gert-Jan chairman OSGeo.nl -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] Namens Jeff McKenna Verzonden: zaterdag 5 juli 2014 11:54 Aan: discuss@lists.osgeo.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members) Hi Dirk, Several people have told me privately how impressed they were with your thoughts on this issue; I myself am not surprised to hear this about you, as you've impressed me with your vision before. In fact I hope you consider joining the OSGeo Board for this next term, we really need your leadership. I hope someone nominates you. -jeff On 2014-07-03, 12:13 PM, Dirk Frigne wrote: Mateusz, [and others], thanks for your reaction, On 02-07-14 11:44, Mateusz Łoskot wrote: On 1 July 2014 18:46, Dirk Frigne dirk.fri...@geosparc.com wrote: [...] I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo community didn't result in any bad experience until now) [...] Core principles are: OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives which support themselves. [1] [...] Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. [...] The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today. Dirk, You've captured the essence well and it fits my personal point of view at OSGeo too. You've also given some good ideas to work on, on how to move about the mixture of expectations within the community. We may need to be careful to not to divide the community to classes of members, professionals and non-professionals. It may turn into a very similar issue as paying and non-paying members. I agree with you. What I tried to express
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
Hi Dirk, Several people have told me privately how impressed they were with your thoughts on this issue; I myself am not surprised to hear this about you, as you've impressed me with your vision before. In fact I hope you consider joining the OSGeo Board for this next term, we really need your leadership. I hope someone nominates you. -jeff On 2014-07-03, 12:13 PM, Dirk Frigne wrote: Mateusz, [and others], thanks for your reaction, On 02-07-14 11:44, Mateusz Łoskot wrote: On 1 July 2014 18:46, Dirk Frigne dirk.fri...@geosparc.com wrote: [...] I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo community didn't result in any bad experience until now) [...] Core principles are: OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives which support themselves. [1] [...] Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. [...] The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today. Dirk, You've captured the essence well and it fits my personal point of view at OSGeo too. You've also given some good ideas to work on, on how to move about the mixture of expectations within the community. We may need to be careful to not to divide the community to classes of members, professionals and non-professionals. It may turn into a very similar issue as paying and non-paying members. I agree with you. What I tried to express with next phrase: The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. Is the following: We are all members of one community, and as such are we are all acting as users, in the broadest sense. However, belonging to the community gives each member a return, also in the broadest sense. (f.e. because of the simple principle you will not become a member if there is no return). What is important in my view, and I think many of us agree with that (counting the positive reactions on my reply [2]), this return is not about money, but in many aspects much more valuable. (I'll come to that in the reply to Bruce [3] I am preparing). I observe that many (if not all) members of our community have different roles in life. I tried to simplify these roles into 4 categories to use the image of Deoxyribonucleic acid ( *DNA* ), where 4 nucleotides form the kernel of all known living organisms. The only thing I tried to express was that it should be the members that benefit in these different roles in life, using tools, techniques, software or know how they share in the community should have the [*not* mandatory] respect to donate to the community they believe is valuable. (valuable not to be expressed in $$ but real *value* such as: - having qualities worthy of respect, admiration, or esteem: a valuable friend. - of considerable use, service, or importance: valuable information. )[4] Why? Because they get the opportunity to benefit from the common assets of the community in whatever aspect, and get the possibility to return some of these benefits for the needs of the community. Important is that there is no guarantee what is done with what you return, just like [many] members commit time, code or whatever without expecting immediate return. Hope this makes it more clear. Thanks for your writing. Best regards, You're welcome, [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-July/013030.html [3] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-July/013043.html [4] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valuable ; meaning 2. and 3. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
Mateusz, [and others], thanks for your reaction, On 02-07-14 11:44, Mateusz Łoskot wrote: On 1 July 2014 18:46, Dirk Frigne dirk.fri...@geosparc.com wrote: [...] I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo community didn't result in any bad experience until now) [...] Core principles are: OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives which support themselves. [1] [...] Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. [...] The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today. Dirk, You've captured the essence well and it fits my personal point of view at OSGeo too. You've also given some good ideas to work on, on how to move about the mixture of expectations within the community. We may need to be careful to not to divide the community to classes of members, professionals and non-professionals. It may turn into a very similar issue as paying and non-paying members. I agree with you. What I tried to express with next phrase: The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. Is the following: We are all members of one community, and as such are we are all acting as users, in the broadest sense. However, belonging to the community gives each member a return, also in the broadest sense. (f.e. because of the simple principle you will not become a member if there is no return). What is important in my view, and I think many of us agree with that (counting the positive reactions on my reply [2]), this return is not about money, but in many aspects much more valuable. (I'll come to that in the reply to Bruce [3] I am preparing). I observe that many (if not all) members of our community have different roles in life. I tried to simplify these roles into 4 categories to use the image of Deoxyribonucleic acid ( *DNA* ), where 4 nucleotides form the kernel of all known living organisms. The only thing I tried to express was that it should be the members that benefit in these different roles in life, using tools, techniques, software or know how they share in the community should have the [*not* mandatory] respect to donate to the community they believe is valuable. (valuable not to be expressed in $$ but real *value* such as: - having qualities worthy of respect, admiration, or esteem: a valuable friend. - of considerable use, service, or importance: valuable information. )[4] Why? Because they get the opportunity to benefit from the common assets of the community in whatever aspect, and get the possibility to return some of these benefits for the needs of the community. Important is that there is no guarantee what is done with what you return, just like [many] members commit time, code or whatever without expecting immediate return. Hope this makes it more clear. Thanks for your writing. Best regards, You're welcome, [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-July/013030.html [3] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-July/013043.html [4] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valuable ; meaning 2. and 3. -- Yours sincerely, ir. Dirk Frigne CEO Geosparc n.v. Brugsesteenweg 587 B-9030 Ghent Tel: +32 9 236 60 18 GSM: +32 495 508 799 http://www.geomajas.org http://www.geosparc.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
On 1 July 2014 18:46, Dirk Frigne dirk.fri...@geosparc.com wrote: [...] I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo community didn't result in any bad experience until now) [...] Core principles are: OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives which support themselves. [1] [...] Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. [...] The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today. Dirk, You've captured the essence well and it fits my personal point of view at OSGeo too. You've also given some good ideas to work on, on how to move about the mixture of expectations within the community. We may need to be careful to not to divide the community to classes of members, professionals and non-professionals. It may turn into a very similar issue as paying and non-paying members. Thanks for your writing. Best regards, -- Mateusz Łoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
Dirk++ ! Cheers Andrea On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Dirk Frigne dirk.fri...@geosparc.com wrote: Although I am not so active on the mailing list, I am an OSGeo's advocate, and I take the opportunity to promote OSGeo wherever I can. I became an OSGeo member in 2007 because I was proud on what the organisation did and I wanted to support it, with the scarce resources I own. One of the things I appreciate enormously is - The organisation is open (as in open source) - Becoming a member of the organisation is totally free (*yes* like in free beer!) - the organisation has a perfect DNA: - members can - act as *A* user - act as *T*echnical skilled person (sofware developers, industry, documentation) - work at *G*overmental body - member of the s*C*ientific world (academic world) In the world of today *free* as in gratis, *free* as in *free* *beer*, doing something for somebody else is very rare (scarce) that it becomes very valuable. Being a part of a community like OSGeo not only is *fun* but also gives you a *good* feeling, and it is very motivating to work in a company or organisation that supports OSGeo. I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo community didn't result in any bad experience until now) Of course, an organisation needs money, To support some stuff (.svn or whathever goal is worth supporting). But I think we should keep the membership *free* (and not as in *free* beer!), because it is in my eyes a very essential part of OSGeo: Core principles are: OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives which support themselves. [1] As in DNA, different chains have different roles. *G*overnments are happy to have such a movement as the Free and open source software [2] movement, because they can avoid vendor lock-in, gain control over their projects (read: become free again), and save a lot of money. They should take this advantage seriously and sponsor open source activities. the s*C*ientific world is happy to use open source solutions, because they can study the tools themselves and focus on research, not being bothered of the licenses they are using. They also should take this advantage seriously and donate scientific relevant material they don't want to exploit immediately to the community. *A*ny user should be free (*not* as in free beer) to use and experiment with the results of what the community is producing. The community should welcome *A*ny user and help him to find his way, so he can take his responsibility and earn respect for what he is doing. And last but not least: the *T*echnically skilled persons are the heart of the community. Being able to create great teamwork and donate back to the community. Also they should take their responsibility and earn the respect they deserve. But where is the money we need to operate the organisation? Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. And they (the professional actors) should become a member (in their role of incorporation) to support it. But sponsored membership should not give rights to vote, or whatsoever. The only thing you gain is that you, as a professional incorporation, are happy with an organisation as OSGeo, fighting for your rights to be able to use *free* software. And the sponsors should trust and believe that a low capital, volunteer focused organisation will do that for them, as they do it already today. The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today. my 2c [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities [2] http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software Dirk On 24-06-14 15:12, Even Rouault wrote: Hi, Interesting topic that raises quite a few questions. I think that all people who have commented in that thread have not necessarily agreed if membership fees would be something in addition to the nomination and election processs, or if it would replace it. If we switch to a paid membership, one would likely have to identify the benefits brought by being a member. Voting rights for the board would probably not a big enough benefit. In the AAG
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
Dirk, Thank you for putting a lot of what I have been feeling about this issue into words. Well said, -Steve On 7/1/2014 12:46 PM, Dirk Frigne wrote: Although I am not so active on the mailing list, I am an OSGeo's advocate, and I take the opportunity to promote OSGeo wherever I can. I became an OSGeo member in 2007 because I was proud on what the organisation did and I wanted to support it, with the scarce resources I own. One of the things I appreciate enormously is - The organisation is open (as in open source) - Becoming a member of the organisation is totally free (*yes* like in free beer!) - the organisation has a perfect DNA: - members can - act as *A* user - act as *T*echnical skilled person (sofware developers, industry, documentation) - work at *G*overmental body - member of the s*C*ientific world (academic world) In the world of today *free* as in gratis, *free* as in *free* *beer*, doing something for somebody else is very rare (scarce) that it becomes very valuable. Being a part of a community like OSGeo not only is *fun* but also gives you a *good* feeling, and it is very motivating to work in a company or organisation that supports OSGeo. I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo community didn't result in any bad experience until now) Of course, an organisation needs money, To support some stuff (.svn or whathever goal is worth supporting). But I think we should keep the membership *free* (and not as in *free* beer!), because it is in my eyes a very essential part of OSGeo: Core principles are: OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives which support themselves. [1] As in DNA, different chains have different roles. *G*overnments are happy to have such a movement as the Free and open source software [2] movement, because they can avoid vendor lock-in, gain control over their projects (read: become free again), and save a lot of money. They should take this advantage seriously and sponsor open source activities. the s*C*ientific world is happy to use open source solutions, because they can study the tools themselves and focus on research, not being bothered of the licenses they are using. They also should take this advantage seriously and donate scientific relevant material they don't want to exploit immediately to the community. *A*ny user should be free (*not* as in free beer) to use and experiment with the results of what the community is producing. The community should welcome *A*ny user and help him to find his way, so he can take his responsibility and earn respect for what he is doing. And last but not least: the *T*echnically skilled persons are the heart of the community. Being able to create great teamwork and donate back to the community. Also they should take their responsibility and earn the respect they deserve. But where is the money we need to operate the organisation? Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. And they (the professional actors) should become a member (in their role of incorporation) to support it. But sponsored membership should not give rights to vote, or whatsoever. The only thing you gain is that you, as a professional incorporation, are happy with an organisation as OSGeo, fighting for your rights to be able to use *free* software. And the sponsors should trust and believe that a low capital, volunteer focused organisation will do that for them, as they do it already today. The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today. my 2c [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities [2] http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software Dirk On 24-06-14 15:12, Even Rouault wrote: Hi, Interesting topic that raises quite a few questions. I think that all people who have commented in that thread have not necessarily agreed if membership fees would be something in addition to the nomination and election processs, or if it would replace it. If we switch to a paid membership, one would likely have to identify the benefits brought by being a member. Voting rights for the board would probably not a big enough benefit. In the AAG example quoted by Paul, there are
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
Although I am not so active on the mailing list, I am an OSGeo's advocate, and I take the opportunity to promote OSGeo wherever I can. I became an OSGeo member in 2007 because I was proud on what the organisation did and I wanted to support it, with the scarce resources I own. One of the things I appreciate enormously is - The organisation is open (as in open source) - Becoming a member of the organisation is totally free (*yes* like in free beer!) - the organisation has a perfect DNA: - members can - act as *A* user - act as *T*echnical skilled person (sofware developers, industry, documentation) - work at *G*overmental body - member of the s*C*ientific world (academic world) In the world of today *free* as in gratis, *free* as in *free* *beer*, doing something for somebody else is very rare (scarce) that it becomes very valuable. Being a part of a community like OSGeo not only is *fun* but also gives you a *good* feeling, and it is very motivating to work in a company or organisation that supports OSGeo. I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo community didn't result in any bad experience until now) Of course, an organisation needs money, To support some stuff (.svn or whathever goal is worth supporting). But I think we should keep the membership *free* (and not as in *free* beer!), because it is in my eyes a very essential part of OSGeo: Core principles are: OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives which support themselves. [1] As in DNA, different chains have different roles. *G*overnments are happy to have such a movement as the Free and open source software [2] movement, because they can avoid vendor lock-in, gain control over their projects (read: become free again), and save a lot of money. They should take this advantage seriously and sponsor open source activities. the s*C*ientific world is happy to use open source solutions, because they can study the tools themselves and focus on research, not being bothered of the licenses they are using. They also should take this advantage seriously and donate scientific relevant material they don't want to exploit immediately to the community. *A*ny user should be free (*not* as in free beer) to use and experiment with the results of what the community is producing. The community should welcome *A*ny user and help him to find his way, so he can take his responsibility and earn respect for what he is doing. And last but not least: the *T*echnically skilled persons are the heart of the community. Being able to create great teamwork and donate back to the community. Also they should take their responsibility and earn the respect they deserve. But where is the money we need to operate the organisation? Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. And they (the professional actors) should become a member (in their role of incorporation) to support it. But sponsored membership should not give rights to vote, or whatsoever. The only thing you gain is that you, as a professional incorporation, are happy with an organisation as OSGeo, fighting for your rights to be able to use *free* software. And the sponsors should trust and believe that a low capital, volunteer focused organisation will do that for them, as they do it already today. The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today. my 2c [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities [2] http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software Dirk On 24-06-14 15:12, Even Rouault wrote: Hi, Interesting topic that raises quite a few questions. I think that all people who have commented in that thread have not necessarily agreed if membership fees would be something in addition to the nomination and election processs, or if it would replace it. If we switch to a paid membership, one would likely have to identify the benefits brought by being a member. Voting rights for the board would probably not a big enough benefit. In the AAG example quoted by Paul, there are several benefits associated: access to journals, reduced prices to publications/meetings, etc... That would mean that there is a commitment of OSGeo to
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
Dirk, I feel your e-mail nails it on the spot. Well spoken, I totally agree. Milo 2014-07-01 18:46 GMT+02:00 Dirk Frigne dirk.fri...@geosparc.com: Although I am not so active on the mailing list, I am an OSGeo's advocate, and I take the opportunity to promote OSGeo wherever I can. I became an OSGeo member in 2007 because I was proud on what the organisation did and I wanted to support it, with the scarce resources I own. One of the things I appreciate enormously is - The organisation is open (as in open source) - Becoming a member of the organisation is totally free (*yes* like in free beer!) - the organisation has a perfect DNA: - members can - act as *A* user - act as *T*echnical skilled person (sofware developers, industry, documentation) - work at *G*overmental body - member of the s*C*ientific world (academic world) In the world of today *free* as in gratis, *free* as in *free* *beer*, doing something for somebody else is very rare (scarce) that it becomes very valuable. Being a part of a community like OSGeo not only is *fun* but also gives you a *good* feeling, and it is very motivating to work in a company or organisation that supports OSGeo. I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo community didn't result in any bad experience until now) Of course, an organisation needs money, To support some stuff (.svn or whathever goal is worth supporting). But I think we should keep the membership *free* (and not as in *free* beer!), because it is in my eyes a very essential part of OSGeo: Core principles are: OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives which support themselves. [1] As in DNA, different chains have different roles. *G*overnments are happy to have such a movement as the Free and open source software [2] movement, because they can avoid vendor lock-in, gain control over their projects (read: become free again), and save a lot of money. They should take this advantage seriously and sponsor open source activities. the s*C*ientific world is happy to use open source solutions, because they can study the tools themselves and focus on research, not being bothered of the licenses they are using. They also should take this advantage seriously and donate scientific relevant material they don't want to exploit immediately to the community. *A*ny user should be free (*not* as in free beer) to use and experiment with the results of what the community is producing. The community should welcome *A*ny user and help him to find his way, so he can take his responsibility and earn respect for what he is doing. And last but not least: the *T*echnically skilled persons are the heart of the community. Being able to create great teamwork and donate back to the community. Also they should take their responsibility and earn the respect they deserve. But where is the money we need to operate the organisation? Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. And they (the professional actors) should become a member (in their role of incorporation) to support it. But sponsored membership should not give rights to vote, or whatsoever. The only thing you gain is that you, as a professional incorporation, are happy with an organisation as OSGeo, fighting for your rights to be able to use *free* software. And the sponsors should trust and believe that a low capital, volunteer focused organisation will do that for them, as they do it already today. The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today. my 2c [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities [2] http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software Dirk On 24-06-14 15:12, Even Rouault wrote: Hi, Interesting topic that raises quite a few questions. I think that all people who have commented in that thread have not necessarily agreed if membership fees would be something in addition to the nomination and election processs, or if it would replace it. If we switch to a paid membership, one would likely have to identify the benefits brought by being a member. Voting rights for the board would
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
2014-07-01 21:34 GMT+02:00 Milo van der Linden m...@dogodigi.net: Dirk, I feel your e-mail nails it on the spot. Well spoken, I totally agree. Milo Yes I also agree. I tried on my past mails to hit some of those points about motivation and the community role but he really nailed it. Well done, thanks! -- Jorge Sanz http://www.osgeo.org http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jorge_Sanz ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
While I don’t think I’m keen on having professionals foot the bill for OSGeo, Dirk is definitely on the right track. His citation of the core principles is timely, and I’ll go so far as to repeat it here: OSGeo should act as a low-capital, volunteer-focused organization. OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives which support themselves. We’re not like Apache, Eclipse, OGC, or ASPRS. We’re OSGeo, and I’d hate to see us drift away from that. “Membership” should be for everyone and anyone. We do need a means to keep the board from straying from those core principles without overwhelming community agreement, which today is done by the idea of charter members. I’m open to changing the model of keeping the board on the right path, but am not willing to go so far as to create any sort membership barriers beyond that one small (yet essential) constraint. -mpg On Jul 1, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Dirk Frigne dirk.fri...@geosparc.com wrote: Although I am not so active on the mailing list, I am an OSGeo's advocate, and I take the opportunity to promote OSGeo wherever I can. I became an OSGeo member in 2007 because I was proud on what the organisation did and I wanted to support it, with the scarce resources I own. One of the things I appreciate enormously is - The organisation is open (as in open source) - Becoming a member of the organisation is totally free (*yes* like in free beer!) - the organisation has a perfect DNA: - members can - act as *A* user - act as *T*echnical skilled person (sofware developers, industry, documentation) - work at *G*overmental body - member of the s*C*ientific world (academic world) In the world of today *free* as in gratis, *free* as in *free* *beer*, doing something for somebody else is very rare (scarce) that it becomes very valuable. Being a part of a community like OSGeo not only is *fun* but also gives you a *good* feeling, and it is very motivating to work in a company or organisation that supports OSGeo. I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo community didn't result in any bad experience until now) Of course, an organisation needs money, To support some stuff (.svn or whathever goal is worth supporting). But I think we should keep the membership *free* (and not as in *free* beer!), because it is in my eyes a very essential part of OSGeo: Core principles are: OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives which support themselves. [1] As in DNA, different chains have different roles. *G*overnments are happy to have such a movement as the Free and open source software [2] movement, because they can avoid vendor lock-in, gain control over their projects (read: become free again), and save a lot of money. They should take this advantage seriously and sponsor open source activities. the s*C*ientific world is happy to use open source solutions, because they can study the tools themselves and focus on research, not being bothered of the licenses they are using. They also should take this advantage seriously and donate scientific relevant material they don't want to exploit immediately to the community. *A*ny user should be free (*not* as in free beer) to use and experiment with the results of what the community is producing. The community should welcome *A*ny user and help him to find his way, so he can take his responsibility and earn respect for what he is doing. And last but not least: the *T*echnically skilled persons are the heart of the community. Being able to create great teamwork and donate back to the community. Also they should take their responsibility and earn the respect they deserve. But where is the money we need to operate the organisation? Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. And they (the professional actors) should become a member (in their role of incorporation) to support it. But sponsored membership should not give rights to vote, or whatsoever. The only thing you gain is that you, as a professional incorporation, are happy with an organisation as OSGeo, fighting for your rights to be able to use *free* software. And the sponsors should trust and believe that a low
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Hi Dirk, Well said. However as someone who fits in all four categories that you¹ve defined, I must point out that the sponsorship dollars may perhaps not be in these categories either. I find it easier to contribute time as **a member of the community** and definitely do not want to be seen as merely a sponsor. Bruce On 2/07/2014 2:46 am, Dirk Frigne dirk.fri...@geosparc.com wrote: Although I am not so active on the mailing list, I am an OSGeo's advocate, and I take the opportunity to promote OSGeo wherever I can. I became an OSGeo member in 2007 because I was proud on what the organisation did and I wanted to support it, with the scarce resources I own. One of the things I appreciate enormously is - The organisation is open (as in open source) - Becoming a member of the organisation is totally free (*yes* like in free beer!) - the organisation has a perfect DNA: - members can - act as *A* user - act as *T*echnical skilled person (sofware developers, industry, documentation) - work at *G*overmental body - member of the s*C*ientific world (academic world) In the world of today *free* as in gratis, *free* as in *free* *beer*, doing something for somebody else is very rare (scarce) that it becomes very valuable. Being a part of a community like OSGeo not only is *fun* but also gives you a *good* feeling, and it is very motivating to work in a company or organisation that supports OSGeo. I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo community didn't result in any bad experience until now) Of course, an organisation needs money, To support some stuff (.svn or whathever goal is worth supporting). But I think we should keep the membership *free* (and not as in *free* beer!), because it is in my eyes a very essential part of OSGeo: Core principles are: OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives which support themselves. [1] As in DNA, different chains have different roles. *G*overnments are happy to have such a movement as the Free and open source software [2] movement, because they can avoid vendor lock-in, gain control over their projects (read: become free again), and save a lot of money. They should take this advantage seriously and sponsor open source activities. the s*C*ientific world is happy to use open source solutions, because they can study the tools themselves and focus on research, not being bothered of the licenses they are using. They also should take this advantage seriously and donate scientific relevant material they don't want to exploit immediately to the community. *A*ny user should be free (*not* as in free beer) to use and experiment with the results of what the community is producing. The community should welcome *A*ny user and help him to find his way, so he can take his responsibility and earn respect for what he is doing. And last but not least: the *T*echnically skilled persons are the heart of the community. Being able to create great teamwork and donate back to the community. Also they should take their responsibility and earn the respect they deserve. But where is the money we need to operate the organisation? Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. And they (the professional actors) should become a member (in their role of incorporation) to support it. But sponsored membership should not give rights to vote, or whatsoever. The only thing you gain is that you, as a professional incorporation, are happy with an organisation as OSGeo, fighting for your rights to be able to use *free* software. And the sponsors should trust and believe that a low capital, volunteer focused organisation will do that for them, as they do it already today. The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today. my 2c [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities [2] http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software Dirk On 24-06-14 15:12, Even Rouault wrote: Hi, Interesting topic that raises quite a few questions. I think that all people who have commented in that thread have not necessarily agreed if membership fees would be something in addition to the nomination and election processs, or if it would
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
Dirk I have been struggling trying to write what you have so elegantly stated I whole heartily agree with what you have written Thank you Norman Founding Charter Member On Jul 1, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Dirk Frigne dirk.fri...@geosparc.com wrote: Although I am not so active on the mailing list, I am an OSGeo's advocate, and I take the opportunity to promote OSGeo wherever I can. I became an OSGeo member in 2007 because I was proud on what the organisation did and I wanted to support it, with the scarce resources I own. One of the things I appreciate enormously is - The organisation is open (as in open source) - Becoming a member of the organisation is totally free (*yes* like in free beer!) - the organisation has a perfect DNA: - members can - act as *A* user - act as *T*echnical skilled person (sofware developers, industry, documentation) - work at *G*overmental body - member of the s*C*ientific world (academic world) In the world of today *free* as in gratis, *free* as in *free* *beer*, doing something for somebody else is very rare (scarce) that it becomes very valuable. Being a part of a community like OSGeo not only is *fun* but also gives you a *good* feeling, and it is very motivating to work in a company or organisation that supports OSGeo. I may be naive, but for me personally this works out well, and having that feeling is one of the important incentives to keep contributing to the community. (And by the way, working with other members of the OSGeo community didn't result in any bad experience until now) Of course, an organisation needs money, To support some stuff (.svn or whathever goal is worth supporting). But I think we should keep the membership *free* (and not as in *free* beer!), because it is in my eyes a very essential part of OSGeo: Core principles are: OSGeo should act as a low capital, volunteer focused organisation. OSGeo should focus support on OSGeo communities and initiatives which support themselves. [1] As in DNA, different chains have different roles. *G*overnments are happy to have such a movement as the Free and open source software [2] movement, because they can avoid vendor lock-in, gain control over their projects (read: become free again), and save a lot of money. They should take this advantage seriously and sponsor open source activities. the s*C*ientific world is happy to use open source solutions, because they can study the tools themselves and focus on research, not being bothered of the licenses they are using. They also should take this advantage seriously and donate scientific relevant material they don't want to exploit immediately to the community. *A*ny user should be free (*not* as in free beer) to use and experiment with the results of what the community is producing. The community should welcome *A*ny user and help him to find his way, so he can take his responsibility and earn respect for what he is doing. And last but not least: the *T*echnically skilled persons are the heart of the community. Being able to create great teamwork and donate back to the community. Also they should take their responsibility and earn the respect they deserve. But where is the money we need to operate the organisation? Personally, I don't think it are the users nor the community members who should take care of that. Because the belonging to the community should remain a *free* right, where the value comes from respect and the intense feeling of giving something without expecting something back. The strange thing is that many of the members are also professional involved into OSGeo (acting as A T G or C). So I suggest it should not be the (community) members who should pay for the support, but these professional actors. And they (the professional actors) should become a member (in their role of incorporation) to support it. But sponsored membership should not give rights to vote, or whatsoever. The only thing you gain is that you, as a professional incorporation, are happy with an organisation as OSGeo, fighting for your rights to be able to use *free* software. And the sponsors should trust and believe that a low capital, volunteer focused organisation will do that for them, as they do it already today. The sponsoring should not be an obligation either, but should be the common responsibility of the companies sponsoring the FOSS4G events today. my 2c [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities [2] http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software Dirk On 24-06-14 15:12, Even Rouault wrote: Hi, Interesting topic that raises quite a few questions. I think that all people who have commented in that thread have not necessarily agreed if membership fees would be something in addition to the nomination and election processs, or if it would replace it. If we switch to a paid membership, one would
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
El 24/06/14 12:33, Mateusz Łoskot escribió: Folks, I still can't comprehend what actually is being objected in the proposal of membership fee. Moreover, I can't understand how the fact members financially support their organisation stands in contradiction with active volunteer-based participation. What is the actual problem here, act of paying or amount or anything else? The problem I think is that we are talking about the membership, about putting money as a requirement, instead of recognition being elected by your peers. What if we've never considered the membership fee and instead we (the OSGeo) would be issuing regular calls on the mailing list: People, this month's bill for svn.osgeo.org is due. Who's paying this time, any ***volunteers***? Ha! Not exactly that, but maybe doing better outreach effort to show where the money is used would help to a better understanding of the need of funds. Budgets are published and anyone willing to ask can reach them, but maybe being more proactive on showing the need for money could help to increase the perception that maintaining OSGeo is not free (as free beer). -- Jorge Gaspar Sanz Salinas http://es.osgeo.org http://jorgesanz.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
On 24 June 2014 12:52, Jorge Gaspar Sanz Salinas js...@osgeo.org wrote: El 24/06/14 12:33, Mateusz Łoskot escribió: I still can't comprehend what actually is being objected in the proposal of membership fee. Moreover, I can't understand how the fact members financially support their organisation stands in contradiction with active volunteer-based participation. What is the actual problem here, act of paying or amount or anything else? The problem I think is that we are talking about the membership, about putting money as a requirement, instead of recognition being elected by your peers. Right, that is something, an actual topic that we can discuss about. IMHO, simple Donate button does not really provoke a deeper reflection that would potentially lead to concious decision Yes, I want to donate. That is because there Donate button these days work like JustGiving.com calls from friends on social networks... one would have to be a billionaire to be able to donate everyone! So, my understanding is that we are considering to add for-fee membership as a form of regular donation that also allows us to predict cash flow and budget. I would suggest to stop thinking of such paid OSGeo membership in terms of memberships to other professional organisations like AGI, AAG, etc. Those are not even remotely linked to OSGeo. Would we ever prevent anyone from attending the OSGeo AGM if she has not paid a membership? Would we ever consider paid OSGeo AGM? Shortly, I see nothing wrong in expecting as an organisation that if an individual aims and agrees to be nominated for OSGeo Charter Member she/he also agrees to donate on yearly/monthly basis. What if we've never considered the membership fee and instead we (the OSGeo) would be issuing regular calls on the mailing list: People, this month's bill for svn.osgeo.org is due. Who's paying this time, any ***volunteers***? Ha! Not exactly that, but maybe doing better outreach effort to show where the money is used would help to a better understanding of the need of funds. Budgets are published and anyone willing to ask can reach them, but maybe being more proactive on showing the need for money could help to increase the perception that maintaining OSGeo is not free (as free beer). Yes, but that is more a technical issue. So, it's the easiest one to solve, I think. Best regards, -- Mateusz Łoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
El 24/06/14 13:26, Mateusz Łoskot escribió: The problem I think is that we are talking about the membership, about putting money as a requirement, instead of recognition being elected by your peers. Right, that is something, an actual topic that we can discuss about. IMHO, simple Donate button does not really provoke a deeper reflection that would potentially lead to concious decision Yes, I want to donate. That is because there Donate button these days work like JustGiving.com calls from friends on social networks... one would have to be a billionaire to be able to donate everyone! So, my understanding is that we are considering to add for-fee membership as a form of regular donation that also allows us to predict cash flow and budget. I would suggest to stop thinking of such paid OSGeo membership in terms of memberships to other professional organisations like AGI, AAG, etc. Those are not even remotely linked to OSGeo. Would we ever prevent anyone from attending the OSGeo AGM if she has not paid a membership? Would we ever consider paid OSGeo AGM? Shortly, I see nothing wrong in expecting as an organisation that if an individual aims and agrees to be nominated for OSGeo Charter Member she/he also agrees to donate on yearly/monthly basis. Yes but I see that as different things, one is being nominated and elected as member, and other being an active sponsor of the organization. They are complementary, some people want to be involved on the organization donating time, others maybe just want to donate funds, and finally some crazy people both :-) But when it comes on deciding who is on the board or any other important issue, I prefer having a membership that has been in one way or the other elected by the community, not one that has paid their annual fee. Ha! Not exactly that, but maybe doing better outreach effort to show where the money is used would help to a better understanding of the need of funds. Budgets are published and anyone willing to ask can reach them, but maybe being more proactive on showing the need for money could help to increase the perception that maintaining OSGeo is not free (as free beer). Yes, but that is more a technical issue. So, it's the easiest one to solve, I think. It's not important now but anyway I didn't explain well myself. I see it as an organizational and marketing issue. As our treasurer, the task of publicly remembering where the money comes and goes is probably one of most ungrateful jobs anyone can have here, only for a tireless special one. -- Jorge Gaspar Sanz Salinas http://es.osgeo.org http://jorgesanz.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
On 24 June 2014 14:02, Jorge Gaspar Sanz Salinas js...@osgeo.org wrote: El 24/06/14 13:26, Mateusz Łoskot escribió: Shortly, I see nothing wrong in expecting as an organisation that if an individual aims and agrees to be nominated for OSGeo Charter Member she/he also agrees to donate on yearly/monthly basis. Yes but I see that as different things, one is being nominated and elected as member, and other being an active sponsor of the organization. They are complementary, some people want to be involved on the organization donating time, others maybe just want to donate funds, and finally some crazy people both :-) So, you prefer that Charter Members and non-Charter Members is not differentiated (among other things) by paid membership. But when it comes on deciding who is on the board or any other important issue, I prefer having a membership that has been in one way or the other elected by the community, not one that has paid their annual fee. AFAIU, nobody proposed to replace Charter Members election with membership fees, but to complement the former with the latter. Ha! Not exactly that, but maybe doing better outreach effort to show where the money is used would help to a better understanding of the need of funds. Budgets are published and anyone willing to ask can reach them, but maybe being more proactive on showing the need for money could help to increase the perception that maintaining OSGeo is not free (as free beer). Yes, but that is more a technical issue. So, it's the easiest one to solve, I think. It's not important now but anyway I didn't explain well myself. I see it as an organizational and marketing issue. As our treasurer, the task of publicly remembering where the money comes and goes is probably one of most ungrateful jobs anyone can have here, only for a tireless special one. The books show where the money comes from and where it goes, so still technical issue, but yes it requires hard work to maintain. However, the marketing side...is a different issue that is much harder to work on than the former one, I think. Best regards, -- Mateusz Łoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
Hi, I have been reading this conversation silently and for my point of view, if paying helps OsGeo, then subsctription fees are welcome. But there is a big but: for students and people who are unemployed, subsctription fees can be very discouraging. It happened to me with IEEE and I still haven't returned to them after so many years. Once I couldn't pay the membership, it was like forcing me to go away. I know that OsGeo is more open and that even people who is not a member can participate actively on mailing lists and projects but... it helps if you feel that you are part of the community. So, couldn't we add some kind of volunteer work to compensate the fee on some cases? For example: people that work on maintenance of the servers, or translate very hard or help on conferences, can they get a discounted or even free subscription? This way, all OsGeo members will contribute to OsGeo (with fees or work) and people who are very active but cannot pay the fees will have also recognition. Just a random thought. On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Mateusz Łoskot mate...@loskot.net wrote: On 24 June 2014 14:02, Jorge Gaspar Sanz Salinas js...@osgeo.org wrote: El 24/06/14 13:26, Mateusz Łoskot escribió: Shortly, I see nothing wrong in expecting as an organisation that if an individual aims and agrees to be nominated for OSGeo Charter Member she/he also agrees to donate on yearly/monthly basis. Yes but I see that as different things, one is being nominated and elected as member, and other being an active sponsor of the organization. They are complementary, some people want to be involved on the organization donating time, others maybe just want to donate funds, and finally some crazy people both :-) So, you prefer that Charter Members and non-Charter Members is not differentiated (among other things) by paid membership. But when it comes on deciding who is on the board or any other important issue, I prefer having a membership that has been in one way or the other elected by the community, not one that has paid their annual fee. AFAIU, nobody proposed to replace Charter Members election with membership fees, but to complement the former with the latter. Ha! Not exactly that, but maybe doing better outreach effort to show where the money is used would help to a better understanding of the need of funds. Budgets are published and anyone willing to ask can reach them, but maybe being more proactive on showing the need for money could help to increase the perception that maintaining OSGeo is not free (as free beer). Yes, but that is more a technical issue. So, it's the easiest one to solve, I think. It's not important now but anyway I didn't explain well myself. I see it as an organizational and marketing issue. As our treasurer, the task of publicly remembering where the money comes and goes is probably one of most ungrateful jobs anyone can have here, only for a tireless special one. The books show where the money comes from and where it goes, so still technical issue, but yes it requires hard work to maintain. However, the marketing side...is a different issue that is much harder to work on than the former one, I think. Best regards, -- Mateusz Łoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net ___ 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] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 María, good points, thanks. I strongly believe that paying a fee for one type of membership must not estrange anybody else who wants to participate. And I don't think that this is in the interest of anybody proposing a paid scheme. Trying to gauge the volunteer effect to decide whether somebody is worthy or not takes somebody to actually measure. Who would be this poor sod? What should she measure and how? Mission impossible and no fun, so forget it. :-) I guess the paid membership - if it comes, will just be complimentary to what we have. Ideally we can somehow carry all Charter Members over to a paid model, just because it would simplify our process so much. And maybe this is also a perfectly sound step to more professionalism. This does not mean that those who do not pay are less professional, instead they will also profit from a more professional environment. Having said that, all who use the word professionalism have probably just run out of sound arguments. :-) Cheers, Arnulf On 06/24/2014 02:38 PM, María Arias de Reyna wrote: Hi, I have been reading this conversation silently and for my point of view, if paying helps OsGeo, then subsctription fees are welcome. But there is a big but: for students and people who are unemployed, subsctription fees can be very discouraging. It happened to me with IEEE and I still haven't returned to them after so many years. Once I couldn't pay the membership, it was like forcing me to go away. I know that OsGeo is more open and that even people who is not a member can participate actively on mailing lists and projects but... it helps if you feel that you are part of the community. So, couldn't we add some kind of volunteer work to compensate the fee on some cases? For example: people that work on maintenance of the servers, or translate very hard or help on conferences, can they get a discounted or even free subscription? This way, all OsGeo members will contribute to OsGeo (with fees or work) and people who are very active but cannot pay the fees will have also recognition. Just a random thought. On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Mateusz Łoskot mate...@loskot.net mailto:mate...@loskot.net wrote: On 24 June 2014 14:02, Jorge Gaspar Sanz Salinas js...@osgeo.org mailto:js...@osgeo.org wrote: El 24/06/14 13:26, Mateusz Łoskot escribió: Shortly, I see nothing wrong in expecting as an organisation that if an individual aims and agrees to be nominated for OSGeo Charter Member she/he also agrees to donate on yearly/monthly basis. Yes but I see that as different things, one is being nominated and elected as member, and other being an active sponsor of the organization. They are complementary, some people want to be involved on the organization donating time, others maybe just want to donate funds, and finally some crazy people both :-) So, you prefer that Charter Members and non-Charter Members is not differentiated (among other things) by paid membership. But when it comes on deciding who is on the board or any other important issue, I prefer having a membership that has been in one way or the other elected by the community, not one that has paid their annual fee. AFAIU, nobody proposed to replace Charter Members election with membership fees, but to complement the former with the latter. Ha! Not exactly that, but maybe doing better outreach effort to show where the money is used would help to a better understanding of the need of funds. Budgets are published and anyone willing to ask can reach them, but maybe being more proactive on showing the need for money could help to increase the perception that maintaining OSGeo is not free (as free beer). Yes, but that is more a technical issue. So, it's the easiest one to solve, I think. It's not important now but anyway I didn't explain well myself. I see it as an organizational and marketing issue. As our treasurer, the task of publicly remembering where the money comes and goes is probably one of most ungrateful jobs anyone can have here, only for a tireless special one. The books show where the money comes from and where it goes, so still technical issue, but yes it requires hard work to maintain. However, the marketing side...is a different issue that is much harder to work on than the former one, I think. Best regards, -- Mateusz Łoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org mailto: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 - -- http://metaspatial.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
Hi, Interesting topic that raises quite a few questions. I think that all people who have commented in that thread have not necessarily agreed if membership fees would be something in addition to the nomination and election processs, or if it would replace it. If we switch to a paid membership, one would likely have to identify the benefits brought by being a member. Voting rights for the board would probably not a big enough benefit. In the AAG example quoted by Paul, there are several benefits associated: access to journals, reduced prices to publications/meetings, etc... That would mean that there is a commitment of OSGeo to provide the advertized benefits, and thus the question on how to guarantee this commitment would arise : volunteers effort, or paid staff/contractors ? Interestingly one of the benefit of AAG membership is access to AAG specialty groups whose equivalent in OSGeo would probably be our mailing lists. So would we want to restrict access to those to non members ? Mateusz also mentionned that bills have to be paid to maintain some OSGeo servers, like svn. Would we want to restrict access to those servers only to the folks who have paid the membership fee ? Probably not. We have only mentionned individual members, but would we want to extend to corportate members as well ? From my perspective, OSGeo Charter membership is a recognition for the accomplishments of an individual to support OSGeo values and missions, and thus gets a right to define its steering through board election. Perhaps we at a community sometimes fail to welcome people who would deserve it, because they are a bit outside of our usual networks to be nominated (or because people are not confortable enough to do public nominations, perhaps for language or cultural reasons), or because we reach the yearly quota for new members. That's certainly a pitty if folks feel excluded whereas I think we generally try to be rather inclusive. One thing to keep in mind is that if we translate into money the value of the accomplishments of OSGeo Charter members, I'm pretty sure that in 99.99% of the cases that translates to much more than USD 70. You can probably add one or two zeros to that figure. So asking them for a fee, in addition to their other forms of contribution, would seem a bit awkward, although I can understand that contribution in term of money rather than time is sometimes more useful. So I wouldn't object to paying a membership fee. But IMHO the main question is : do we need membership fees to sustain OSGeo ? Aren't surplus funds generated by FOSS4G sufficient for that (although I can understand that Howard's fear that FOSS4G organization by volunteers might not be a sustainable model) ? Or perhaps we would need more funds to be able to do more things ? OSGeo is perhaps rather different from other organizations in the geomatics field in the way it manages its membership, but is it more a strength or a weakness ? Even ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
Folks, I'll toss my two cents into this discussion. I think a lot of this has been already stated in part by others. o while I don't object to a membership fee in principal it has to come with some benefits for the member not for OSGeo. While it might be beneficial to OSGeo by providing an income stream, I think it is more important that the member gets a significant benefit above and beyond whatever benefits of association they currently get. o since this is currently a volunteer organization and there are a lot of people that volunteer a lot of effort to OSGeo it seems like a lot to ask them to also volunteer funds in addition to their time. I would be concerned that if people have to pay a fee then we might see a significant reduction in effort in time volunteered and this could potentially offset the funds received from fees. This discussion started discussing membership and voting and has wrapped into membership fees. I understand that this is part of our growing process as an organization, but this feels like a random walk around the various aspects of how other orgs deal with members. I clearly don't know all the issues, but I think if we want to make a reasonable case for doing any of the things discussed we need a more coherent plan that we can sell to the members and should how Membership has privileges and benefits to them and how it also helps the organization over time. When OSGeo was formed a lot of model for it was taken from the Apache Foundation model. I wonder how these issue fit in that, not that we have to follow that model, but I do think we need to have a big picture view of the OSGeo and where it wants to go as an organization for its members rather than just as a self perpetuating bureaucracy. -Steve Woodbridge ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
On 06/24/2014 06:14 AM, Mateusz Łoskot wrote: On 24 June 2014 14:38, María Arias de Reyna delawen+os...@gmail.com wrote: But there is a big but: That's why I decided to ask, what are those buts, as I haven't learned any concrete arguments from the original thread. It happened to me with IEEE and I still haven't returned to them after so many years. Once I couldn't pay the membership, it was like forcing me to go away. Yes, I experienced similar situation, but ACM/IEEE/... are different organisations. So, couldn't we add some kind of volunteer work to compensate the fee on some cases? Again, that is a technical issue related to amount of fee, region-based adjustment of fee, etc. First, we should focus discussion on the aspects Howard explained [1] and understand what are the major pros and cons of paid membership. [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-June/012964.html Best regards, There is a question about whether or not people value enough the Free services they are currently receiving. This is a general question about whether people truly value things they get for Free. I'm still looking for good research on the topic and not just internet chatter. Many of our committees are somewhat short-handed or non-operational due to lack of volunteers. Webcom is almost non-existent, so the main website upgrade has been on hold for years even though a design plan was created. There's also been a suggestion for stipends for some system admins to keep things running more smoothly. Marketing/Outreach always gets requests for materials and we do allocate I think up ~$500 to new chapters needing permanent materials but we don't cover any handouts. I agree $ should not block anyone from access to any of our services. So the question is what would people get for their membership besides a resume line? Your note about professional society fees being a blocker is why I suggested they be quite low. If even 1/2 of our mailing list subscribers joined ($10-$20) we could double or triple our operating budget. Maybe we just need fundraising drives every year or for specific things. Thanks everyone for contributing lots of ideas. Alex ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Membership fee (was: Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members)
On 2014/06/24 03:33, Mateusz Łoskot wrote: Folks, I still can't comprehend what actually is being objected in the proposal of membership fee. Moreover, I can't understand how the fact members financially support their organisation stands in contradiction with active volunteer-based participation. What is the actual problem here, act of paying or amount or anything else? My $0.02 [1] Separate the issues: A) Have a discussion about the Charter Member process that does not have anything to do with fees, and then come to a resolution (at least for this year). B) Have a separate discussion about fees and types of memberships (e.g. different thread(s), perhaps at a different time frame than (A) to avoid muddying the waters). C) Have a separate discussion about fundraising, and ways to accomplish that (some of which have already been brought up within the current discussions). [1] With the elimination of the Canadian penny[2] and the rounding process, that $0.02 is worth zero dollars, so take it for what's it's worth ;-) [2] http://www.mint.ca/store/mint/about-the-mint/phasing-out-the-penny-692 -- Dave Patton Victoria, B.C. Degree Confluence Project: Canadian Coordinator Technical Coordinator http://www.confluence.org/ Personal website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
