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 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 > >-- >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 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
