I should be able to make it tomorrow but I will publish my thoughts here. 1) while we have had something more involved in previous years, the end result was the same. I’d really hate to change the process again so quickly although I do like the template idea. Maybe via form on the wiki or something. But if people really don’t like the new process I’m not that against changing it but if we do change it, imho it needs to be done right after the election and not close to next years process.
2) I still feel that nothing bad was followed here. I think recusal from CRO after nomination is reasonable as long as it’s before voting or setup etc. 3) since these are all voluntary positions, I feel that any one should be able to withdraw if that’s what they feel is necessary. We don’t know what all went into the decision but I believe that anyone nominated would act in a heartfelt and considered manner. If Jeff felt the need to withdraw, I think we need to respect that, even if during the election. The end result is the same as if he withdraws after, except that some people had more info to make a decision. This could happen to anyone if their circumstances changes. It’s something I think we have to allow for as real life can interfere with our best intentions. Finally I agree with the decision to not redo the election. If there was something that interferes with integrity of the election, then there would be cause but these are just, frankly, almost to be expected issues. We are just fortunate that we haven’t been as affected by these in previous years. Michael Smith OSGeo Treasurer > On Oct 25, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Vasile Craciunescu <vas...@geo-spatial.org> > wrote: > > 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
