Board Meeting 2013-02-26

From OSGeo
Revision as of 10:59, 28 February 2013 by Jmckenna (talk | contribs) (→‎Minutes: draft from Mike!)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This board meeting is a 3 hour meeting scheduled for the 26th of February 2013 at 18.00 UTC. The plan is to use a Google Hangout to conduct this virtual meeting.

Preparation for this Meeting

  • all Board members must have a Google/Gmail account
  • we will use Google Hangout, which has a maximum of 9 video participants
  • test your mic and video camera before



  • [10:20] call to order
  • roll call
    • Cameron - Au
    • Daneil - Ca
    • Frank - US
    • Jacym - Cz
    • Jeff - Ca
    • Michael - US
    • Anne - It
    • (Hobu and Matt Wilkie lurked)
  • [10:23] review of minutes from Jan 17
    • motion to approve - 1/Frank, 2/Cameron 2nd, all +1
  • [10:26] on to regular business
  • geotools new contribution agreement
    • motion to approve - 1/Cameron, 2/Jeff, all +1
  • Anne to be GSOC mentor
    • motion to approve - 1/Frank, 2/Daniel, all +1
  • [10:32] open discussion about osgeo priorities
    • mpg: do what osgeo members want to do and will do, and do not try / wring-hands over other things
    • mpg suggests 4 lists: "I+" (where income comes from), "I-" (where income not expected from), "E+" (planned expenses), "E-" (expenses we don't want)
    • I+: conference income primary source
    • E+: expenditure to main & regional conferences
    • mpg: "accept, but not chase" spnsorships
    • cameron: size of risk/income/expense should all be in proportion
    • jeff: small regional confs unsure if they can come to osgeo proper for support? - yes, they can - need to make this explicit
    • cameron: minimum suggested amount in bank - 50-80K?
    • mpg asks: how much return on investment for events?
    • cameron: suggests 1.10x, i.e. $1K investment ideally yields $1.1K return
    • jeff: does this mean each foss4g must generate 100K?
    • cameron: worst case scenario to break-even -- get back what we invested
    • cameron: codesprints supported by excess funds, different category from events
    • noted that "codesprint is a pure loss-making activity"
    • all generally in favor of "matching funds" policy
    • noted that these are principles and guidelines, not strict rules
    • jeff: "we're here to support"
    • cameron: we should not be paying for booths
    • frank (on IRC) clarifies: I think the idea is that paying for booth space at tradeshows can be very expensive and not a particularly good use of our funds.
    • jeff: line item for 'advocate travel' -- still valid? -- if they want us, they should pay for us
    • mpg/daniel: distinguish between "advocate" travel and "board business" travel
    • (anne speaks, but audio is poor - can't transcribe much)
    • frank: speaks of our "corporatist" beginnings, via Autodesk, but moving now towards grassroots
    • mpg applauds this sentiment
    • various terms suggested: "cheap", "scrappy", "spunky", "lean", "minimalist"
    • anne notes: would like to see more cooperation among projects and osgeo funding the meetups of osgeo projects' communities
    • mpg wonders aloud what mlucas and pmbatty would say to these discussions
    • aghisla: foss4g barcelona was not appealing for developers, more for presenting technologies and make a great "show" - forgive the term
    • frank: we are not all things to all people
    • jeff: "an environment in which osgeo service providers could thrive"
    • cameron: if the service provider effectiveness was important, how come no one has stepped up to fix it?
    • mpg: is SPD a core priority for us?
    • various: go to discuss list, throw a little money at it, have a contest, kill it, ...
    • cameron: livedvd at conferences
    • mpg: support for communities that already exist… or support incubation of new ideas w/o a community yet?
    • cameron: livddvd aimed at value to users, which means projects already extant
    • jeff: traveling for educational purposes... "osgeo labs"... big success, goes back to an MOU with ICA
    • anne speaks to the value of Suchith's work -
    • mpg - points to osgeo labs as model if success -- low $ but high visibility, and no work from board to date
    • frank: "we just have to be supportive", stay out of their way (which is not to imply that we have been in their way)
    • jeff: we are farther than just "…and we support education too"
    • discussion turns to local chapters
      • mpg: LCs are low overhead for board, but big impact - another example of how ogee foundation is a win
      • mpg notes half his dev team came out of local chapter, promises to write some stuff about value & benefits of LCs
      • anne: speaks on osgeo journal, asks about value of the local chapter reports
      • anne: italian chapter was created long before becoming osgeo local chapter and connection is still weak
      • jeff: gets asked "why create a chapter?"
      • various: local events, networking, language affiliation, ...
      • cameron: note no need for overhead, funding, etc
      • daniel: local chapter "precursor" can be helped to perceive when it's appropriate to form a formal local chapter
      • anne points to local chapter mailing list to share experiences on how and why to establish local chapters
      • frank points to
    • Q: should the board be paid travel expenses to the annual mtg?
      • mattw: "as an outsider, I think board members should be helped/encouraged to make the annual FOSS4G's, and funded to do so."
      • and what about conference registration expense?
      • frank says this is anti-scrappy
      • straw poll taken (I did not record votes, sorry)
  • all agreed to take rest of issues to mailing list and/or next meeting
  • [1:20] adjourn

Assigned Tasks