Hi everyone, currently there is some discussion on the board list that really belongs on the general discuss list. Cameron has put a summary in an e-mail which got sent to the wrong list (OGC TC discuss instead of OSGeo discuss), I’m forwarding it below as a starting point for discussion.
Basically the question is how should we determine who gets elected and who not? Currently there is a proposal to raise the threshold from 5 to 50%, but two board members (including myself) have already voted -1 on this proposal, main reason being that we don’t know the opinion of the broader community on this. The board discussion is unfortunately scattered over multiple threads with titles like: motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter membership more exclusive motions from June 18 meeting http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/thread.html Best regards, Bart > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Cameron Shorter <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Board] motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter > membership more exclusive > Date: 20 Jun 2015 01:59:56 CEST > To: [email protected], "Discuss, TC" <[email protected]> > > OSGeo board, > As an OSGeo Charter member, I request that the following motion (see below) > not be passed without first discussing publicly on the OSGeo Discuss email > list. > > The current process for joining OSGeo Charter Membership [2] was specifically > refined to be more inclusive than before, in order to make it easy for all > passionate people within the OSGeo community to join, while aiming to protect > against the now relatively unlikely possibility of a hostile takeover. > > Based on the proposal below, 11 out of 64 of last years successful > nominations would be rejected under the proposed new rules. I suggest this > is not in OSGeo's interests. > > It is possible that some of these 11 people are not very involved in OSGeo, > and maybe haven't contributed much since being nominated, but is that a bad > thing? Have any of these 11 people been actively detrimental to OSGeo while > being an OSGeo Charter member? Note, the only official duty of a charter > member is to vote for the board. However, being recognised as a charter > member is useful for many of our members looking to gain OSGeo credibility, > such as when presenting at conferences. > > If we are more inclusive, and add 10 new non-active/non-disruptive OSGeo > Charter members, then I'd argue that it is worth it for the 1 passionate > Charter member we also gain. > > I remember a quote from Jeff which rang true with me, and which I think is > applicable here: > > "I once heard an interview with a legendary lead singer of a band, who said > his goal each concert was to make the kid sitting in the very back row to > feel like he's as much a part of the concert as the kid sitting in the front > row, and this is exactly how I focus my community work for OSGeo." > http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-August/013498.html > <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-August/013498.html> > > Warm regards, Cameron Shorter > > On 20/06/2015 5:29 am, Vasile Craciunescu wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please also vote for motion below. >> >> 5) For the new charter members elections, change the threshold of required >> YES votes of charter members from 5% to 50%. See Jeff's e-mail [1] for >> detailed explanations and the rationale of this change. If needed, also >> check the Membership Process [2]. >> >> My vote is +1. >> >> Best, >> Vasile >> >> [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-May/012863.html >> <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-May/012863.html> >> [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process >> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process> > > On 26/05/2015 2:18 am, Jeff McKenna wrote: >> 3. Decide on 2015 Selection Process >> ----------------------------------- >> >> To refresh everyone's memory, last year we (Board) modified the selection >> process[3] for Charter members; but in my opinion we made a mistake with the >> voting change of "Each candidate with more YES votes than NO votes, and >> greater than 5% of voting charter members voting YES for them, will be >> included as new charter members." >> >> What I saw was, for the first time in OSGeo history, strategic nominations >> by certain projects, for relatively unknown community members; the result >> was that all 64 nominations were accepted as Charter members. >> >> For 2015, I am proposing we make 1 change, instead of the 5% acceptance, >> change that to 50% or greater voting YES. Such as: >> >> *** >> Each candidate with more YES votes than NO votes, and greater than or equal >> to 50% of voting charter members voting YES for them, will be included as >> new charter members. >> *** >> >> I have checked the 2014 results again, and with those new 50% rules, we >> would have accepted 45 nominations versus all 64 nominations. I believe >> this is much better. >> >> But of course this needs to be decided by the Board and community. I am >> merely kicking off the process So please speak your mind, or edit the 2015 >> Elections wiki directly. >> >> Yours, >> >> -jeff > -- > Cameron Shorter, > Software and Data Solutions Manager > LISAsoft > Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf, > 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009 > > P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com/>, F +61 2 > 9009 5099 > _______________________________________________ > Board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
