Thanks Vasile, You managed to cut down to the things that really mattered and that we can all learn from. Impressive clear and comprehensive summary. I hope his advice will be weighed and incorporated into future policies regarding the Foundation's governance.
Kind regards, Marc Vloemans > Op 25 okt. 2017 om 20:00 heeft Vasile Craciunescu <vas...@geo-spatial.org> > het volgende geschreven: > > Dear Board directors and dear members of OSGeo community, > > This year elections [1] will end in less than 7 hours and it is time for me, > as CRO, to make a short assessment and to issue a few recommendations. > > As you all know, during the process we had a few situations that caused > tension and discontent to an important number of our members. I will go > through the most important ones. > > 1. This year membership process [2] was a very lite one. The basic rule for > becoming a charter member was to be nominated by one existing member and to > be seconded by at least one other existing member. This lite approach was in > line with the new OSGeo Vision and Mission Statement which is focused on > being inclusive [3]. However, during the nomination period, many of our > members considered the new membership process way too inclusive/lite, causing > a diminution in the importance of the charter member position. Another > subject that produced criticism was related to the fact that some of the > nominations were considered short in content and did not offer enough > information on the "positive attributes" [4] that a potential member shall > have. Finally, one of the charter member responsibilities [5], "Be aware of > and protect against a takeover of OSGeo by single group or viewpoint.", was > also a subject of dispute. My recommendations for the future board are to: > (a) Change the existing membership process with another one more balanced, > that assures both inclusiveness and a consistent weight for the charter > member position. Of course, this new mechanism should be discussed with the > community; (b) Impose a a very light template for the new nominations. This > way, all the nominations will be consistent and comparable. (c) Rephrase > responsibility no. 3 of the charter members. The meaning should be kept bu > the wording should not sound that martial. > > 2. Jeff was nominated for the board of directors while was serving as co-CRO. > Even if the nominee steeped down immediately from the co-CRO position, the > access to the c...@osgeo.org was immediately cut-off and he never had access > to the electronic voting system, criticism over the potential conflict of > interest and elections credibility was raised. My recommendation for the > board is to make a specific rule that a nomination/candidacy for/from a > person that is acting as CRO or has any other role in the election management > is not acceptable. > > 3. During the voting period Jeff sent a request to withdraw from the > elections due to the negative feedback. This also started a vivid debate. My > recommendation for the board is to create a clear rule stating that an > accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start of the voting period. > Of course, elected persons can always resign for various reasons. > > Regarding the current status of the elections. 311 from a total of 390 > members voted (80%). Due to the final reminder sent today there are chances > to improve the voting participation. > > In my previous message I was proposing to accept Jeff's withdraw request but > to continue the elections without any modification to the voting list. After > more study on different voting systems and after going through your feedback, > my decision and proposal for the board is not to admit the request from Jeff. > Such requests are not possible in this kind of elections elsewhere. It is > true that we have no specific rule for that in our bylaws. As I mentioned > before, this should change. After the release of the elections results, and > if Jeff is elected, it's up to him to decide if he goes on with the mandate > or if he is resigning. This decision should be a very fast one, without > further discussions on the mailing list, with all the possible arguments > being already on the table. > > The other option that the board can consider is to entirely restart the board > elections cycle (or only the voting part for the remaining 8 nominations). > Even if this looks like the most correct way to go, looking on how the > elections went before and after Jeff announcement, I can say, without > disclosing anything about the final results, that the announcement did not > changed the way people were voting. Of course, this is not a fact, is just my > conclusion after looking at the trends. After the elections, beside the final > numbers, I will also publish the evolution of the votes (every single vote > and the timestamp, anonymized of course). Other important reasons for the > board not to start new elections are: (a) The community is very irritated > about this never ending stories and people are waiting to move forward and do > the things we usually do. For most of them, the arguments for restarting the > elections are not strong enough; (b) Four of our current board members are > also running in this elections. Although that personally I have no doubts > that each one of them will position/vote/decide correctly, only in the > interest of the community, some objections on the position/vote/decision > impartiality can be raised. > > In any case, the board should have an opinion before the results are made > public. To give time to board members to react, I plan to release the results > of the vote on Thursday 17:00 GMT. If needed, more time can be allocated. > However, deciding on the way to go further after seeing the results can only > escalate the possible conflict of interest. > > I'm asking the board for a position not because I'm running away from the > responsibility (my position was clearly presented) but because we have no > specific rules in our bylaws for the current situation and the CRO has really > no legal obligations, the board members being the one that are legally > responsible for the foundation decisions. > > Personally I have to apologize again to you for the length of this message. I > was not able to convey this in a more condensed way. I think the most > important challenges for the near and medium future are to restore the trust > of our community in the way the organization is managed and to reconcile what > is now, in my opinion, a divided community. Of course, achieving this is not > easy, will require a better communication and the prevail of arguments over > emotions, but, under such a vibrant, passionate and transparent organization > like OSGeo this is surely possible. > > As CRO, I did my best not to express any personal opinion, to focus strictly > on facts and rules, to be calm and impartial. Not sure how well that went by > the end but I want to assure everyone that all my actions were perform in > good faith and to the extend of my knowledge. I'm thankful for all the people > that assisted me along the way with technical support (Jeff, Jorge, Jody, > Werner). I will also would like to extend my gratitude to all the people that > publicly or privately expressed support for the CRO activity. It was highly > appreciated. For me this will be the last term as CRO. Not because this year > was a little bit more challenging but just because I did this three times and > someone else should take the lead. Of course, that person will have my full > support. > > I will finish this by thanking all the people that voted and expressed > opinions on this list. Direct involvement and dialog are the only options to > move ahead as a community. > > Best, > Vasile > CRO 2017 > > [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2017 > [2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process > [3] http://www.osgeo.org/about > [4] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes > [5] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Responsibilities > > _______________________________________________ > Board mailing list > bo...@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
