The OSGeo Fundation is driven by volunteer manpower and sponsorship. The OSGeo Foundation is a proxy body that transfers contributions from sponsors to activities initiatives and projects that perform under the umbrella of OSGeo, to the OSGeo members. The OSGeo members (right column) are free to raise funds on their own. Some projects do it very well, some don’t do it at all (and it’s not any fault, it just happens). However, all participants are eligible to accept OSGeo support in the same way, scale, etc. For instance, all members use OSGeo brand, OSGeo infrastructure, OSGeo marketing efforts and many more. The OSGeo Foundation membership is a value. Period.
Let’s make it straight. What about reversing the direction of flow of support? Should there be any reason to not to ask projects to support OSGeo Foundation? If a project is well funded by 3rd party organizations, it should be a part of fair play to expect a minimal tribulum paid back to OSGeo. Actually, this mechanism has been included as a part of the Project Sponsorship program:
One quarter of the sponsorship amount will be put into the general OSGeo account for any OSGeo use (such as paying hosting costs, general promotion, etc)
Does it apply in case OSGeo member project gets funds through a back door?
There are bills to be paid, there is always a lot of work to get done around OSGeo activities, meaning there are expectations, there are loads of tasks that need to be accomplished in reasonable amount of time, but a limited resources available.
Disclaimer: I was born in socialistic republic that no longer exists, but it does not mean I believe in socialism or that I’d like to see OSGeo being converted into communist party and Tyler flying to North Korea with official visit to give Kim a hug.
I believe in joint responsibility and fair play.
Mateusz,
I’m all for Tyler flying to North Korea and giving Kim a hug.
Regarding the other issue. I have mixed feelings about this. I think Project Sponsorship is a good thing, but on the other hand I think it may disencourage people from being direct sponsors if the amount to general fund is not capped.
Case in point lets say you get $1,000,000 to fund a particular feature in a project (you have to tell the sponsor — hmm by the way 5% of that has to go into general OSGEO fund). That almost encourages backdoor funding.
However if it was stated 5% up to a maximum of (…..) of the sponsorship goes to general fund and additional general fund amount is up to sponsor discretion — it does make the cut a bit more palatable.
I don’t see such an upper limit in the sponsorship program or perhaps I missed it.
Regina,
I have mixed feeling as well. If I don’t have them, I will post my thoughts long time ago or won’t post them at all :-)
You are probably right such requirements may disencourage potential sponsors, however…people may want to avoid paying taxes, but it does not mean governments should stop charging them.
I’m inclined to believe that reasonable sponsors would understand the, let’s say, 5% mechanism and why it is used for – in order to support long lasting, sustainable maintenance of a product they sponsor. In other words, 5% may help to ensure that their sponsorship won’t disappear in abyss (= project will die).
p.s. I’d boycot such personas like Kim