Difference between revisions of "Board Meeting 2018-09-08"

From OSGeo
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Updating motion results)
Line 82: Line 82:
Status: Open
Status: Passed
=== Review election process guidelines ===
=== Review election process guidelines ===
Line 108: Line 108:
Status: Open
Status: Passed

Latest revision as of 03:19, 19 September 2018

This board meeting is scheduled for the 8th of September 2018 at 16.00 UTC through IRC, a record of motions is preserved on loomio and actions on osgeo todo issue tracker.


Current items

Items in italic are recurring at each meeting.

Note that the meeting is limited to 1 hour.


  • Presiding: Jody
  • Scribing: Angelos


  • Jody
  • Angelos
  • Vasile
  • Jeff
  • Maria A
  • Michael

Review and approve past minutes


Motion moved to Loomio: https://www.loomio.org/p/xRyQjv1H/approve-board-meeting-minutes-from-2018-08-01

Status: Passed


Action: Post minutes and approve on loomio.

OSGeo virtual exhibition of physical memorabilia

  • Request on board mailing list
  • peter_loewe present to support.
  • Board interested to preserve history, we should keep at least the virtual historical.
  • Discussion about history being on SVN and how things can move to git.
  • Peter Loewe: Tracking physical objects with a persistent ID (DOI) is not very difficult. Once we have a central hub (web-/Wiki-page) within the osgeo realm, we can create landing pages for each artifact in an online archive, like Zenodo, where they get DOI assigned. If OSgeo should decide to also use DOI in the future, the landing pages @ Zenodo and the Zenodo-DOI can be "migrated" over to the new OSGeo-DOI/Landing pages.
  • Pilot for GRASS: https://grasswiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GRASS_virtual_exhibition
  • Peter Loewe: I am very curious how much pre-WWW stuff is out there, and where its located
  • Lets get a learning experience from the GRASS test case and then roll it out. Or at least derive best practices for the future.

FOSS4GNA Event funding request

  • Request on board mailing list
  • Request is for 10k, further discussion shows that 20k may be more appropriate. Discussion about splitting funding into 2: one for this year and one for next year.
  • This affects not just one regional event, but all, and how we/OSGeo handle this.
  • Discussion if the board should write a requirement and step by step procedure for this.
  • To meet this request we will need to make a motion that also revises our 2018 budget.
  • Discussion about the profit section, and returned surpluses: we need to establish a policy for this, and that return percentages were way too high in the FOSS4G-Oceania thread.
  • Discussions about tracking each events surplus back to OSGeo as a amount they can plan on for the next year, so that we don't manage surpluses, they just come back (what does come back) and then a request gets made again next year (if needed)
  • Jeff: we need a policy for all events, before we can approve. Jody: I do not think we need a policy for all events before we can approve because this event is setup according to an existing policy that was approved. Reasoning: 1) approve this funding request as it has been done according to our wishes 2) make a general policy. Jeff: we must be careful before all of a sudden supporting regional events, we should first develop requirements
  • If we split this request in two, we can approve the first part under the old policy and any additional under the new guidelines.
  • We prefer to host (rather than sponsor) to take on any loss so our members are not financially exposed. We have a preference to provide "backstop funding", we got feedback that this language was financial and confusing and to use the word "host" would better communicate the responsibility/relationship.
  • It would be great to have the requirements driven through people like NA and Oceania working together with conference committee. As we now have 22+ events a year, plus global, this is an important topic that we also need conference committee input, financial report, etc. We should ask conference committee, and we should write it so that local organizers have options where we can help rather than rules to follow

MOT1: Motion to provide support to FOSS4G-NA for 10k

  • Maria A +1 (initial motion)
  • Michael +1 (seconded)
  • Jody +1
  • Vasile +1
  • Jeff +1
  • Angelos +1

Motion moved to Loomio: https://www.loomio.org/p/Q6eP5cLn/motion-to-support-foss4g-na-2019-with-10k

Status: Passed

Review election process guidelines

  • Jody: There is one phrase that caused a lot of confusion last year, do we have any will to clean up this document before member elections this year? [1] "Be aware of and protect against a takeover of OSGeo by single group or viewpoint.".
  • Angelos: I do prefer our members to remember that there used to be this danger.
  • Michael: do we need to clarify how to submit an negative vote?
  • Note: this wiki page needs to be updated with instructions for the automated solutions to be used this year

Request for Board to sign Enabling FAIR Data commitment statement

  • Request on board mailing list
  • Peter: in a nutshell: there's an international project about collecting the state of the art about FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Reusable,Interoperable). They have drafted a manifesto, an are asking all concerned parties, including science organizations, journals ,repositories, policy makers, etc to sign it. The goals of the project are absolutely in sync with what we are already doing. There will be no hard commitments if OSGeo signs.

MOT2: Motion for OSGeo to sign Enabling FAIR Data commitment statement

  • Michael +1 (initial motion)
  • Jody +1 (seconded)
  • Jeff +1
  • Vasile +1
  • Maria A +1
  • Angelos +1

Motion moved to Loomio: https://www.loomio.org/p/sykuW3jq/motion-for-osgeo-to-sign-enabling-fair-data-commitment-statement

Status: Passed