Hi Bob, I agree with your assessment.
Maybe last year’s statistics can shed some light on your questions? http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014_detailed_results <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014_detailed_results> Best regards, Bart > On 22 Jun 2015, at 20:42, Bruce, Bob (CWS) <bob.br...@gov.mb.ca> wrote: > > This proposal of requiring over 50% of charter members voting yes seems > extraordinarily onerous. Most of our elected officials in Canada would never > get elected under that rule. Without knowing what % of charter members > typically vote in the elections I cannot comment on what I think that the > appropriate % is, and I wonder if a required per cent is even required, if > more vote Yes than No and a quorum is achieved then why not declare them > elected? > > Bob Bruce > Winnipeg, Manitoba > > From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org > <mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> > [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org > <mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org>] On Behalf Of Bart van den Eijnden > Sent: June-22-15 1:32 PM > To: OSGeo Discussions > Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] election process > > 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 > <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/thread.html> > > Best regards, > Bart > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shor...@gmail.com > <mailto:cameron.shor...@gmail.com>> > Subject: Re: [Board] motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter > membership more exclusive > Date: 20 Jun 2015 01:59:56 CEST > To: bo...@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org>, "Discuss, TC" > <tc-disc...@lists.opengeospatial.org > <mailto:tc-disc...@lists.opengeospatial.org>> > > 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 > bo...@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board > <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board>
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
