Re: Outsiders, insiders, transparency, action (was Re: [OSCOM] Re: Michi resigns from OSCOM [Fwd: [Board] OSCOM ordinary meeting of members minutes])

Thanks Seth, I think that's constructive input.  Combined with  
Martin's note, I understand better.  I think there's been a (perhaps  
false) dichotomy between OSCOM-the-community and OSCOM-the-membership.

The latter came into being because an organization came into being.   
That organization had responsibilities -- a bank account, assets,  
liabilities (related to conferences), audits, taxes, bylaws, voting,  
etc.  It is governed by rules in Switzerland.  The means it needs  
some legal chants to conduct its business.

Somewhere along the line, general@oscom and members@oscom got  
conflated.  There emerged the impression that, in order to take  
initiative, one needed to be in the latter camp.  A group which has  
shown an inverse level of interest relative to the first.

At a minimum, we should make it clear that members@oscom is confined  
to matters defined in the bylaws.  The OSCOM *community*  
(general@oscom) should run itself and not take orders from the legal  
entity.  Perhaps in the future we can get rid of the latter -- the  
legal entity -- by rolling it into some umbrella foundation (or just  
closing it).

Is there a strong demand to get involved in the organizational  
responsibilities of OSCOM?  If so, I'll volunteer to fix the page and  
write a short primer on membership.  If not, I'll change the page to  
make it more clear that the actual work product of OSCOM happens in  
the community.

--Paul

On Feb 28, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Seth Gottlieb wrote:

> For me, the perception of outsiders and insiders comes from reading  
> the
> bylaws:
>
>    To be eligible for membership, a person or entity must be nominated
>    by a current member of the association. The Board decides on  
> admission.
>    Any membership decision made by the Board can be challenged by  
> any member
>    of the association, whereupon the next Meeting of Members will then
>    decide on that person's membership.
>
> Plus the fact that Become a Member link on the Get Involved page is  
> unlinked.
> The list of members on
> http://www.oscom.org/get-involved/organization/members.html is  
> small implying
> that it is a small group.
>
> It kind of feels like becoming a member of ASF, rather than a  
> membership
> organization.  That may in intentional and I don't see anything  
> wrong with
> that.  However, it does appear that you need to jump through some  
> hoops and
> make the right friends to get into the club.
>
> Not complaining, just explaining.
>
> --Seth
>
> Paul Everitt (paul-+XpZaIz3/[email protected]) wrote:
>>
>>
>> This meme about outsiders and insiders keeps coming up.  I'm curious
>> about the issues behind it.  Beyond the feed issue, what are the
>> other points of substance driving this?
>>
>> As an "insider", I can promise you that the board is about as
>> menacing as a comatose slug. :^)  Transparency isn't really the
>> issue, IMO, as there has quite literally been nothing to see.  OTOH,
>> I can see how the perception of a clique could arise.  Please,
>> though, don't ascribe "I can't see anything" to lack of
>> transparency...instead, ascribe it to "there's nothing to see".
>>
>> What's needed now is new energy.  Not just the energy of
>> brainstorming great things that could be done, but the kind of
>> getting-things-done energy.  For example, the kind of energy that
>> generates more than one member showing up for the annual members
>> meeting. :^)
>>
>> First and foremost, the bylaws currently require a minimum of four
>> people to constitute a board.  We could amend the bylaws to reduce
>> the required minimum, but even that requires a process and a vote,
>> and thus, someone to conduct it.
>>
>> No need to reply now, but for those of you whose heart yearns to be
>> an insider and learn the secret handshake...think about running for a
>> board seat.
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Chalu Kim wrote:
>>
>>> Your point well taken... You are right and are not the only person
>>> who feels like that here.
>>>
>>> I suppose OSCOM felt a bit like free mason... There were insiders
>>> and there were outsiders.
>>>
>>> What it needed is "transparency" where people know the rules and
>>> how to be recognized not who knows who. Like many open-source
>>> trends, it moves with momentum users and developers create.
>>>
>>> Whether OSCOM is revived is not as important as how "transparency"
>>> is created and how collabolation is achieved.
>>>
>>> Seth Gottlieb wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree that OSCOM has already been doing these things to a
>>>> degree.  I am not suggesting a departure from the original vision
>>>> (which I am all for). I would just like to see more execution.
>>>> One thing that I think would be helpful is to get existing
>>>> customers involved.  Their interests are aligned in getting the
>>>> good word of open source software into the market place.  Their
>>>> stories will help kill the FUD.  I also would like to see more
>>>> open source projects getting involved.  The website is not clear
>>>> how people can join and does not seem to invite participation.
>>>> Not to talk about myself, but I asked for my feed to be included
>>>> twice and got the feeling that there was some selection committee
>>>> for inviting new members.  Anyway, those are my observations as an
>>>> outsider.
>>>>
>>>> --Seth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chalu Kim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seth Gottlieb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Sandro,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am interested in participating in this dialog of the future of
>>>>>> OSCOM on the mail list or wiki or whatever you choose.  As for
>>>>>> me, I would like to see OSCOM pursue the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Develop and promote a message of "why open source.".  In
>>>>>> particular, fight the fear.  It would be great to come up with
>>>>>> some empirical rebuttal to the proprietary software industry's
>>>>>> claim that open source is actually more expensive because it is
>>>>>> essentially un-finished and requires a disproportionate amount
>>>>>> of effort to install and integrate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Has this been done all along? Not to everyone's satisfaction, I
>>>>> am sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be interesting instead to see what types of people are
>>>>> using and what they are complaining about. Something from grunt's
>>>>> point of view...
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Promote collaboration and fraternity between developers across
>>>>>> projects. * Participate in and endorse (or reject) standards
>>>>>> (JSR170, OSR101, iECM)
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think OSCOM has served this by being a conduit or remaining
>>>>> neutral. Also, there are lots of posts of encouraging JSR and OSR
>>>>> already.
>>>>>
>>>>>> :Let me know if I can be of any help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Seth
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandro Groganz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pdm wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is a good idea: open a wiki where we can all contribute
>>>>>>>> to write up a plan for OSCOM
>>>>>>>> that should give you some input to fuel your good thinking
>>>>>>>> over the next couple of weeks...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good idea, indeed! Yet, I did not even think about the proper
>>>>>>> way of channeling the discussion, but this is definitely a good
>>>>>>> and simple one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So we actually have to main issues:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - discuss the future of OSCOM?
>>>>>>> - how we want to structure and keep track of the discussion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I look forward to seeing our future all laid out
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't promise that there will be no more uncertainties :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sandro
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> General mailing list
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> http://oscom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> General mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://oscom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> General mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://oscom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
>>
>