[Osia-members] On the future of OSIA (again)

Brendan Scott lists at opensourcelaw.biz
Fri Jan 12 16:27:01 AEDT 2018


I am sorry I am a little late to this party. My comments are:

*** Overview

I think there is value in maintaining a national organisation for businesses using free and open source software. If only for the usual benefits an association brings - the ability to pool resources, the ability for like minded people to connect, and the ability for people working together to achieve things that they can't achieve when working alone. As Paul mentioned earlier, it also provides benefits such as limited liability, and corporate status.

*** Purpose of OSIA
The purposes of OSIA are set out in section 66 of its constitution. The first paragraph reads:

"the promotion of awareness of the existence and utility of free and open source
software, and of its associated licensing terms and the demonstration, through
case studies, market research, information gathering, and other methodologies,
of the specific benefits of the use of free and open source software;"

What the organisation pursues in practice is determined by who actually does things. When we originally set up the organisation I believed that individual members would play an active role. However, in practice, it has been the directors who have been those taking action, while members have been largely passive. There are probably a lot of reasons for this. I'm not sure any of them are relevant. What is relevant is that what OSIA does will be determined by who is on the board. It is for that reason that it is important for nominees to tell members what they're interested in pursuing. Then members, by choosing who they vote for, are also choosing what it is that OSIA will do in the coming year.

*** The Right Thing for OSIA

So, what is the right thing for OSIA to do? I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer to this question. Nor do I think that there is necessarily a single answer to the question. Nor do I think that a good answer one year will be equally good for another year.  The right way to get a good answer is for nominees to put their position to the members and for the members to vote on those people.  By definition, whatever the result, it's a good one.

*** Directors

You can also have different board members pursuing different things. In my view, the board should encourage individual directors, as well as members, to do things that the Board as a whole does not object to, but doesn't itself want to focus on.  Having committee structures is an entirely normal way for associations to organise.

There is also nothing inherently wrong with having passive directors who are just interested in administering the organisation and/or taking part in decision making. However, as a matter of practice, a board full of passive directors will not be useful. The performance of management or communication functions should be recognised as valuable contributions.  As a general rule it's better to have a board member who contributes rarely than to not have them at all.  I think it is unwise to limit the number of board positions.

As OSIA does not have enough income to hire staff, individuals who are thinking of working on the board should expect to be volunteering their own time to further the interests of the members.  There is no sugar coating that, although I think directors do benefit through the recognition they receive. I think board positions can assist younger participants in the sector to help grow their networks and would encourage them to nominate.

Regards,


Brendan




More information about the Osia-members mailing list