Dilbert mentions Open Source today. Or, rather, his boss mentions it "because it's free." Which it is, but it's the freedom to run, modify, and share software that's important.

The issue of whether OSI should shift from the current limited board composition to be a [potentially] representative member-based structure has been a fairly long-standing question. However, it has been gaining more traction and attention of late, and we have a forum here on the OSI site for discussions about it.

Yesterday I seeded the forum with some of the basic questions about the topic, and we invite your thoughts and participation. Let us know what you think!

This isn't posing a question so much as proposing a possible model.

I envision there being regional/country OSI representatives who can be contacted by local organisations or governments to find out what the local OSI membership feeling/position is about things. Possibly even poll the membership with questions posed by the government, and bring the answer back.

Should OSI be open to organisational memberships as well as individuals? (Or only organisation with no individual members?) What would the criteria for organisational membership be?

1. Fee-based
2. Nominated/voted on by OSI board or members
3. Something else..?

What would membership get for an organisation?

1. Banner/logo placement on the OSI site
2. Franchise to vote (on what topics, ...)
3. Something else..?

What would someone get for being a member of OSI?

• A name@opensource.org eddress
• Ability to vote on OSI issues (directors, licences, members, ...)
• Access to internal resources? (mailing lists, strategic discussion fora, ...)
• Other.. ?

How would this fit into a tiered model (see the membership level thread)?

How would one become a member of OSI?

1. Just by saying 'I want to be a member'
2. Paying some sort of registration fee or dues
3. Having demonstrable participation in one or more open source projects
4. Being nominated/voted on by the OSI Board
5. Being nominated/voted on by the existing OSI membership

[The last one obviously wouldn't apply until there was an existing membership.]

This is the basic question. From 1998 through 2007, the Open Source Initiative has consisted solely of its board of directors. New directors have been selected by the existing ones.

This is not a terribly representative model. Does it work adequately? Should OSI be representative? Should it be a membership-based organisation?

The Impact of Design on Stock Market Performance dates back to 2004, but the kernel of truth it reveals could be even more stunning for the world of open source. Here is the teaser from the Dexiner (pronounced Designer) website:

Design is a critical component of business performance. We’ve heard designers, commentators and companies say it. But, to date, the evidence for the link between shareholder return and investment in design has been scarce and anecdotal.

[...]

I first met Pierre Fricke in late 1998 or early 1999 when he was working for IBM. He was one of four people charged by IBM to research and evaluate the strategic implications of open source software for IBM's business. Because I was a founder of the world's first open source company, he was keen to understand what I saw back in 1989, what I saw looking to 1999 and beyond, and whether our experience (which earned upwards of $24M of revenue in 1999) could possibly inform the strategy for a company more than 1000x our size.