> I encourage everyone to look at the larger page, some of this is covered under guidence for candidate selection.
This is good, but as a reminder: the reason I brought this up to discuss-list originally was to give voice to concerns of new nominees -- who do not necessarily see our "guidance for candidate selection", only the brief email from CRO asking if they accept the responsibility of "protect(ing) against hostile takeover". I don't think we've fully addressed that original concern here yet. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Jody Garnett <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
