Thank you for your dedication in fulfilling this role, extensive summary, and patience through an unexpectedly turbulent election processes.
I am not sure I have collected my own thoughts, in the interests of meeting your request I would like to ask if the current board members are available for 14:00 UTC tomorrow. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:00 PM SERGIO ACOSTAYLARA < sergio.acostayl...@mtop.gub.uy> wrote: > Very well said. We need more people like you. You have my full support. > 👏👏 > > Sergio Acosta y Lara > Departamento de Geomática > Dirección Nacional de Topografía > Ministerio de Transporte y Obras Públicas > URUGUAY > (598)29157933 ints. 20329/20330 > http://geoportal.mtop.gub.uy/ > > ________________________________________ > De: Discuss [discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] en nombre de Marc Vloemans [ > marcvloema...@gmail.com] > Enviado: miércoles, 25 de octubre de 2017 15:21 > Para: Vasile Craciunescu > Cc: OSGeo Discussions; osgeo-board List > Asunto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of > view > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- -- Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss