[OSMF-membership] Managing OSMF membership using CiviCRM

Dave Corley davecorley at gmail.com
Fri Jan 9 19:15:52 UTC 2015


I have sent a separate mail to Jon regarding his decision to bow out of the
group so I won't rehash here except to say I am deeply saddened by his
decision especially as we had a number of conversations in private which
indicated both of us were very much on the same page in terms of our hopes
for this WG. I had largely remained silent up until now as it was clear
from our conversations he was vastly more skilled in terms of software
related topics so we agreed that was somewhere we could split roles easily,
i.e. he would be the lead on software issues.

Moving on, I too come from a background where I utilise a large amount of
project management skills and tools in my daily work so I understand
completely both sides of the mails so far and have come across both view
points many times in the past i.e. one side wanting to just get moving, the
other side wanting to take stock first.

I'm not overly familiar with CiviCRM so maybe Jonathan (Bennett), you could
give a quick response to Fred's mail from the 6th where he outlines some of
the things that would be good to have. Can CiviCRM meet all of these?

Regarding usage of FOSS exclusively, personally I am not going to let that
dictate how we move forward with tasks. If there is a better paid option
out there that works and does everything we need then the fact that is is a
paid for version should not be a reason to exclude it from the list of
options. I was involved with the Future WG and saw one guy spend weeks
jumping through hoops trying to get free software working the way he wanted
simply because there were several who didn't want to look at paid options.
In the end nothing happened because he couldn't get it to work and there
was still no movement on talking about paying for a better option. I'm not
saying I'm leaning either way, I just want to be clear that if paid
software is the best choice then its the best choice.

Regarding this WG....

Over the next few weeks I am also going to start sending out items to each
of you to get your opinions on what you think the role of this WG is. I
have a feeling (which might be totally wrong) that many have a specific
idea and would be reluctant to see this WG go further. Before we go too
much further I would like to gather this info, collate it and see where we
stand. It may be that we are all on the same page or there could turn out
to be 2 (or more) very opposing views which will need to be resolved.
Either way, this is something which is painless to do and has proved useful
many times in the past as it highlights potential problems early on and
allows them to be resolved before we go too far in any particular
direction.

Once this is done I will send it out to all involved and arrange a meeting
to brainstorm any sticking points

Dave

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan Harley <jon at spiffymap.net> wrote:

> On 08/01/15 22:36, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> Still, I have to comment: There are two sides to this whole thing, one
>> is the actual data set which can easily be copied, the other is
>> procedures (what happens when someone signs up, when a membership
>> expires, when a payment comes in). Not only are these procedures
>> currently manually executed (at the cost of a significant amount of
>> time), they're also undocumented which means that their proper execution
>> depends on one person alone.
>>
>
> Which leads me to believe that the first thing we should do is document
> them. However, it's clear now that everyone who isn't me prefers a "hit the
> ground running" approach.
>
> ...
>
>> I can see how you, as a methodical person, have some reservations about
>> hitting the ground running in this case, but this is probably because
>> you lack the backstory of how Henk started looking into CiviCRM *years*
>> ago and how this went through different iterations and different hands
>> and I, for one, am quite happy to see that Jonathan Bennett has prepared
>> the ground for a successful introduction of CiviCRM. That doesn't mean
>> that this group is useless - it just means that an initial obstacle
>> which could otherwise be mulled about for years has already been
>> (mostly) cleared, and the group can go to work with the next bit.
>>
>> Of course if this initial step - drawing up requirements and selecting
>> or creating a suitable software or service - was the *only* bit that
>> attracted your attention, I can see how you'd be a bit miffed, but I'm
>> sure there are schools of project management that can deal with "jfdi
>> and we can still fix stuff later" ;)
>>
>>
> Very perceptive - that was indeed the part that I volunteered for. As
> there's an obvious consensus, and I disagree with it, it's best I bow out
> now and let the rest of you get on with it unhindered. Good luck.
>
> Jon.
>
>
> --
> Dr Jonathan Harley   :    Managing Director    :   SpiffyMap Ltd
>
> jon at spiffymap.net      mobile: 07590 024028www.spiffymap.com
> The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSMF-membership mailing list
> OSMF-membership at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-membership
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-membership/attachments/20150109/e2681a21/attachment.html>


More information about the OSMF-membership mailing list