Vasile - good work, thanks for it, you did great. J
po 30. 10. 2017 v 18:32 odesílatel Jody Garnett <[email protected]> napsal: > 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.northumberlandnationalpark.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
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
