I do not think we need to get the wording perfect, we have have multiple bullet points to cover this requirement.
I encourage everyone to look at the larger page, some of this is covered under guidence for candidate selection. -- Jody Garnett On 30 August 2017 at 08:54, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe something like "maintain the organization's representation of the > diverse interests in the community"? > > It's a bit clunky but I think it works. > > > On 2017-08-30 07:33 AM, Margherita Di Leo wrote: > > Hi, > > If I may still chime in, I don't think this keeps the meaning of what was > originally intended, I would add diversity to integrity. In an extreme > example, if you consider the risk of green aliens taking over osgeo, those > aliens may have integrity and still if they are too many, they would > naturally start to represent the interest of their planet. Diversity is > IMHO what would keep the balance. > > My 0.02€ > > Il giorno mer 30 ago 2017 alle 06:35 Sara Safavi <[email protected]> ha > scritto: > >> Coming back to this discussion; thank you all who chimed in with more >> information. >> >> With the words of wisdom from Frank, Jody, and others -- is it fair to >> say that Charter Members have the responsibility of voting, as well as >> "preserving the integrity of the OSGeo Foundation"? That seems a less, >> well, hostile, way to express the main idea that seems to have come out of >> this discussion. >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Sara Safavi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi discuss, >>> >>> In the notification emails from CRO to new charter member nominees, the >>> following is included (emphasis mine): >>> >>> *"(Charter Members) have the following responsibilities: (1) annually >>> vote for OSGeo Board Members; (2) annually vote for new OSGeo Charter >>> Members and (3) be aware of and protect against a hostile takeover of >>> OSGeo."* >>> >>> I have had more than one nominee of mine contact me asking what exactly >>> this means. I agree with their concerns: this is strange language to use, >>> is not reflected in our bylaws, and frankly does not fit the image I >>> presented when I first contacted them asking if they would accept a >>> nomination. >>> >>> It may be a language barrier or simply a misunderstanding, but can we >>> clarify what is meant by using this kind of verbiage, and consider a >>> re-wording? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sara >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- > Margherita Di Leo > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing > [email protected]https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > -- > Kevin Michael Smith<[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
