Board Meeting 2013-02-26

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
• https://plus.google.com/hangouts
• test your mic and video camera before

Agenda

• roll call
• appoint meeting chair, meeting scribe/secretary
• Review and approve past minutes: Board Meeting 2013-01-17
• Review GeoTools Contribution Agreement.
• Motion to appoint Anne Ghisla as 2013 GSoC admin/coordinator
• OSGeo Priorities discussion (see thread at http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2013-February/010516.html)
• Work together on the OSGeo Budget 2013
• Other Finance updates:
  • 501c3 status
  • 2011 and 2012 financials
  • D&O Insurance up for renewal now
  • Delaware and BC yearly filings
  • Hire Professional Accountant / Lawyer to resolve all outstanding financial issues?
• please add items
• Decide on who to report this meeting summary to the Discuss list
• Schedule next meeting

Minutes

• [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
  • http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2013-February/010516.html
  • 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 conferences are unsure if they can come to OSGeo proper for support - yes, they can - need to make this explicit/in writing

• • 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? -- unsure of who is able to use this, so maybe we should place these funds elsewhere
  • cameron: 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: we should provide "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?
  • jeff: livedvd is important for education/training
  • cameron: livedvd aimed at value to users, which means projects already extant
  • jeff: "osgeo labs"... big success, goes back to an MOU with ICA
  • anne speaks to the value of Suchith's work - http://nottingham.academia.edu/SuchithAnand
  • 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" - we must publish/share our OSGeo Labs success

• • 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: often during travel am asked "why create a chapter?" - would be nice to have published success stories to point to
    • 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 http://www.osgeo.org/content/chapters/guidelines.html

• [12:15pm] on to budget discussion
  • budget draft: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av9Xf1ehZXz-dHJRdGhXZlo4ako2b21qd2lXbVVMdGc#gid=0
  • (did not caputre details of line-items discussions)
  • noted that "co-contributing" == "matching funds"
  • cameron noted that livedvd featured at ~40 events, jeff thinks that is low(!)
  • daniel asks: should we support the DVDs or the Projects?
  • cameron: ~150 people contributing

• • 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