I think the correct link is this one - https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2016-8-24#OSGeo_charter_member_election_procedure .
But I agree, although this issue was discussed across several meetings (notably the issues and stratagy discussed here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Face_to_Face_Meeting_2016) the end result was not communicated to our membership and came as a surprise for the 2017 elections. I like the new procedure, although I am sorry it is more work for the CRO. I am surprised at the perception that it is more inclusive - I believe it is a little less inclusive then the prior procedure (since a single -1 vote can now cause a candidate review). Both systems do not have an adequate way to ask for more information, or discuss a nomination, without it being viewed as a personal criticism. There are a couple of ideas (template for nominations, encouraged asking questions) but it will be a careful balance. -- Jody Garnett On 30 October 2017 at 09:57, Vasile Craciunescu <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Tom, > > I understand the way you are feeling and I know that are reasons for that. > I remember that I had some hard time when I did wrote that part of my > email. However, this was reported my many persons and I had to include this > in my message. Anyway, I don't think that a single old OSGeo charter member > will consider the new comers as lite members. The quality of the new > members is proven by the important number of seconding messages and by the > fact that no veto was raised. In the early years of OSGeo, the membership > process was a very selective one and this was also a subject of criticism. > I can understand why moving from one extreme to another can cause such > reactions. Personally I'm very in favor of an inclusive system but one with > an voting mechanism. This is something for the community and the board to > decide. The actual system is also a big burden to the CRO (hundreds of > emails and wiki edits) and also a stress for our mailing list. > > I can only speculate why they did not used our mailing list to express > their opinion. Most of them are old OSGeo members and I think they did not > want to sound like they are contesting the membership process (already > started) or that they contest the already nominated persons. Not a single > one contested the persons that were nominated and I'm 100% sure that was a > genuine care not to dilute the importance of our membership position. Also, > most of the messages were not sent to CRO email but over IRC/Google > Hangouts and some during face to face meetings, just before the elections, > at FOSS4G in Boston. > > I will conclude by reiterating again that all the critics were on the > membership process and not a single one about the new members. Of course, > those critics should not be expressed now, just before, during or after the > nomination process, but immediately after the board decided to change the > membership process. The board decided to make the change during the face to > face meeting in Bonn in 2016 [1]. At that time, the board did a poor job in > communicating this change to the community. Actually only those members > that are manually checking the meetings wiki pages or the OSGeo Loomio > instance were aware of the change. I was also a board member at that time > and I would like to apologize for not communicating better. > > Best, > Vasile > > [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2016-8-04 > > > > > > On 10/30/17 2:27 PM, Tom Chadwin wrote: > >> Dear Vasile and all >> >> I've thought long and hard about whether to reply or not, but it has been >> bothering me, so I guess I must. >> >> 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. >>> >> >> As one of the intake of this year's new charter members, I find this both >> insulting and upsetting. >> >> 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. >>> >> >> Where does that leave those of us elected as charter members this year? >> Are we "lite" members because "many" existing members felt strongly enough >> about protecting the exclusivity of their position to complain privately to >> the CRO, but not strongly enough to express that opinion openly so that it >> could be discussed? >> >> I really feel for Vasile that people expressed such a potentially toxic >> opinion, thereby absolving themselves of the responsibility of putting >> their names to it, while presumably expecting him to raise it himself, as >> he has so professionally done. >> >> I was extremely proud to have been nominated and generously seconded. >> Recognition and reputation are significant parts of open-source currency. >> However, this attitude creates the impression that membership is a >> self-serving clique. >> >> I would have been happy to have gone through a more rigorous nomination >> process. However I, and many of my colleagues - many much, much more >> respected than me - did not, through no fault of our own. >> >> Let me make this clear: this issue and the way in which it has been >> raised, coupled with the white western board election results (concern >> about which I absolutely share), and also the unpleasant flavour of the >> board election through the situation with Jeff are making me question >> whether I should retain the charter membership I was so proud to attain. >> >> Yours in frustration >> >> Tom >> >> >> Tom Chadwin, ICT Manager >> Telephone: 01434 611530 Mob: >> Web: www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk<http://www.northumberl >> andnationalpark.org.uk/> >> >> IMPORTANT NOTICE - Disclaimer - This communication is from Northumberland >> National Park Authority (NNPA).The Authority’s head office and principal >> place of business is Eastburn, South Park, Hexham, Northumberland, NE46 >> 1BS, United Kingdom. If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note >> that any form of disclosure, distribution, copying or use of this >> communication or the information in it or in any attachments is strictly >> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in >> error, please delete the email and destroy any copies of it. Any views or >> opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily >> represent those of NNPA.Contractors or potential contractors are reminded >> that a formal Order or Contract is needed for NNPA to be bound by any offer >> or acceptance of terms for the supply of goods or services Although this >> email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other >> defects which might affect any computer or IT system into which they are >> received, no responsibility is accepted by the NNPA for any loss or damage >> arising in any way from the receipt or use thereof. Computer systems of >> this Authority may be monitored and communications carried out on them >> recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other >> lawful purpose. >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Vasile Crăciunescu > geo-spatial.org: An elegant place for sharing geoKnowledge & geoData > http://www.geo-spatial.org > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/geo-spatial > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
