Dear all,
some thoughts on the proposed changes on the Charter Member election
process.
I will divide my comments into two parts, first some issues about the
process itself and then some comments on the proposed changes.
(A) the process per se:
1/ I think that whatever change in the election process should be
validated by the Charter Members themselves, so I fully agree with
Arnulf that we need to vote on that and not just the Board. And of
course this contains no offense for the Board; it is just that I think
that it is fair that the body who is affected by the changes to take the
decisions.
Moreover the charter members are the ones who elect the Board so it
seems quite awkward to me that the smaller governing body will take such
decision.
2/ I think that whatever decision taken should be enforced in next
year's elections; members need some time to evaluate that. So it is good
to conclude this process now but enforce it from next year.
(B) the proposed changes:
Before discussing the proposed changes I think that we should understand
where the current system has failed. Do we have cases where recognized
community leaders failed to be elected? If so please bring them forward.
I doubt so though since if I recall correctly the last two years all
charter member nominations were accepted without voting! Moreover the
notion of a "recognized community leader" that cannot be elected as a
charter member is a contradiction by itself. So why change?
I am not against the idea of having some people becoming OSGEO Charter
Members ex officio but for one I do not like the idea of having members
of different categories and secondly I need to have a look at the data:
how many of the committee chairs, PSC members, official Chapter chairs
are not already OSGEO Charter members (and they wanted to be and
failed)? Why are they not nominated to become ones and to be voted?
And I don't see how the problem described here:
"In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been a little
contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations from high caliber
members of our community, and insufficient positions to accept them all.
This typically results in unnecessary disappointment and dissent."
will be resolved: again we will have some people not becoming Charter
Members if the seats are not enough. So some of us will still be
disappointed, etc. So if the numbers are the same the only difference I
see is that now we choose beforehand whom to disappoint and people
working in the community but in not "official" positions will have less
chances to be elected.
If we want to open up the numbers, this is OK, more seats are offered
every year anyway. But what else?
And of course the first come first served approach if the recognized
community leaders are more than the seats is a bit odd: to lighten up
the discussion I cannot imagine people with the finger on the mouse
waiting for the process to open in order to submit there nominations.
Finally, for the voting process I completely disagree with the ability
of a member to vote multiple times for the same person. This removes
from the process the requirement of someone to be widely recognized
within the community and potentially allows "a couple of friends" to
elect whoever they want.
I think that the discussion is interesting and thanks to the board and
Arnulf :) for initiating it!
I think that other solutions could also be considered if we feel that we
need to differentiate on how charter members get elected, e.g. agree on
a bonus percentage that a "community leader" gets when he goes through
the standard process, so he still has to be voted by many...
I apologize for the length of the e-mail and thanks for listening,
Best regards,
Dimitris Kotzinos
Within 2 weeks we intend to start our annual process for selecting new
OSGeo charter members.
In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been a little
contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations from high caliber
members of our community, and insufficient positions to accept them all.
This typically results in unnecessary disappointment and dissent.
In response, the OSGeo board has agreed to trial tweaking the voting
process. The aim is to automatically accept recognised OSGeo community
leaders, while continuing with our existing process which attracts the
many valuable community members who contribute in other ways. Community
comments are encouraged, and will be considered over the next week.
*Design guidelines:*
* We want a process which is simple to understand and implement.
* We want a process which encourages recognised OSGeo community leaders
to become OSGeo charter members, while continuing to accept members from
the many other valuable OSGeo roles.
* We want a process which is difficult to abuse.
* For the first iteration, we should err on being more selective in our
criteria, with potential widening of selection criteria in future years.
*Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders**
*
OSGeo aims to provide OSGeo Charter Membership to all recognised OSGeo
community leaders who are nominated. Hopefully, sufficient positions are
available. If there are more candidates than available, then membership
will be allocated to the first to be nominated. Remaining nominees will
be automatically offered to go through the standard voting process.
Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders are defined as people who have been
*voted* into a position of authority within official OSGeo projects and
committees, where the voting community includes at least 3 OSGeo charter
members.
Acceptable roles are currently limited to:
* Project Steering Committee member of a Graduated OSGeo Project
* Chair of Official Local Chapter
* Chair of an OSGeo committee
The application process for recognised OSGeo Community Leaders is the
same as for other nominees.
Full text of our processes are at:
* http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process_2014
* http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
