Re: [OSCOM] Raising kids

On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Seth Gottlieb wrote:

> Boris Kraft wrote:
>
>> I know. But the question is: can one org stand for both parties -  
>> the  pure-play's and the "professional OS" guys? Does it want to?
>
> I think that depends.  If the "professional OS" guys make their  
> marketing message "we are open source for grown ups" and disparage  
> community based projects, there will be very little common ground.   
> However, if there are common benefits that both kinds of open  
> source share (access to source code, collaboration between  
> customers, rapid enhancement, open/standards based architectures),  
> then it is worthwhile to have an organization that stands for and  
> promotes these benefits.
> I also think that, given that the OS CMS "market" is so fragmented,  
> it is good to have some kind of unifying body.  In order to deliver  
> on this potential, I recommend a change in language to what was  
> mentioned before: active participants are called members;  
> organization leadership are called directors or something like that.

Remember that we currently have to comply with Swiss law.  OSCOM-the- 
entity most likely needs: something like members, something like  
directors, *and* something like officers.  (That's what the bylaws  
currently have.)  Any bylaw changes we make will require some amount  
of work.

It would be easier if we picked a word for the people that self- 
organize in the community but don't want to be legal members of the  
association.  For example, the word "contributors".  That way we can  
keep the bylaw/board stuff off to the side while the energy in the  
community gets moving.

--Paul