I completely disagree with contacting ESA with the scope of changing the use of the word "enforce" in Exhibit A.

Again, this is not a matter of “not taking the time” to engage with ESA. Within several chat discussions, as well as during a meeting, the OSGeo board has addressed your concern and the board has reached the conclusion that ESA’s wording is acceptable in the context of the MoI.

As the representative structure, the OSGeo board discusses concerns internally, the majority reaches a consensus and then, on one voice, it officially communicates with external entities.

Contacting ESA, as a separat voice within the OSGeo board, makes OSGeo look unprofessional.

This is tough for me. I think the MoI is important, I don't agree with how a question about wording is handled. In exhibit A I'd like the word "enforce" replaced with something that reflects OSGeo's focus on leadership and mentorship ("use" would be appropriate imo). It's a very small change, unfortunately the suggestion resulted in pressure to just accept it rather than useful discussion.

I have also not been very constructive. So this push back is likely a reaction to my own reaction. What if like to see is ESA asked to change one word. Yes any action is on the ESA side. And yes our role in OSGeo is to take care of how we express intent.

I don't know what a resolution is. I don't want to block it, I'm conflicted about just saying ok...

I have updated the meeting minutes with an overview of the chat discussion that happened last week:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2023-07-25#ESA_MOI

• Adam has expressed the opinion that the word "enforce" in Exhibit A could be changed to "use". The reasons are: 1. the MoI(U) doesn't give either organization power to enforce anything. 2. OSGeo shouldn't be about enforcing things, with external organizations - we can lead, mentor, encourage.

• During the meeting the wording was discussed. The word "enforce" is on ESA’s side and not OSGeo. It explains why ESA signs this MoI: “In this context, the current MoI represents a key strategic element to enforce open source practices and maximise outreach and community building for the open source components developed under the ESA EO Science for Society activities.”

• We agreed that this is ok on OSGeo side. It does not imply whatsoever that OSGeo is an enforcer. Some organizations need/use such language on regulations and agreements.

@Adam thank you for your feedback. The intention of the motion was not to put pressure, it was the outcome of the meeting consensus that this matter has been discussed.

I understand that the meeting time was not convenient for you to attend, but not being present at the meeting does not mean your feedback was not constructive.

Hi, Adam! We addressed the usage of the word “enforce” in Exhibit A multiple times and I am sorry to see now that you didn’t take my answers as relevant to your concerns and that you actually perceived it as pressure. That was far from my intention. I stand by what I said during these discussions, that the use of the word “enforce” in Exhibit A does not put any pressure or imply whatsoever that OSGeo is an enforcer. In the context of this MoI, from my perspective, “enforce” is very well employed and I do not support asking ESA to change it.