Hi All +1 from me
I like keeping things simple until they need to be more complex! Cheers, On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 10:26, Bruce Bannerman < [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Ed, > > You make some good points regarding dual affiliation with OpenStreetMap. > > Cheers, > > Bruce > > On 24 Sep 2019, at 19:16, Edoardo Neerhut <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree we need to remember our role > in the international community and be wary of reinventing the wheel. > > I wanted to address your point on the structure of membership and > operating within the international framework. I can think of two reasons > why we should devise a framework that works best for Oceania which is not > necessarily the same thing as the current OSGeo membership structure. > > 1. OSGeo Oceania was setup as a body to represent and foster the OSGeo > community, but also OpenStreetMap efforts. On the latter, we are currently > pending confirmation to become the recognised Local Chapter by the > OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). OSMF has its own membership structure and > procedures. We need to consider both if we are to represent both > communities. I would argue that Melbourne last year proved that the > FOSS4G + SotM coupling worked well and could be improved upon further. If > this is to remain the case, our membership structure needs to be appealing > to both communities. > 2. We should choose the membership structure that makes sense for our > community at this point in time. There is a lot to learn and replicate from > OSGeo, but I don't think we should be a carbon copy of the international > structure. We have unique characteristics such as diverse economic > conditions and a relatively small community when compared to Europe/North > America. I think innovation in the structure of our community can go both > ways. Both international -> down and local -> up. > > There is a lot to consider here in this membership discussion and many > ways to approach this, so I am appreciating the discussion. > > Cheers, > > Ed > > On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 03:03, Bruce Bannerman < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi John and fellow OO Community Members, >> >> I’ve now gone through the proposed document and comments either in the >> document or on this list. >> >> Some observations: >> >> >> - We need to remember that we are part of the global OSGeo Community >> and operate within that community and framework. In my opinion the >> International OSGeo is where much of the community’s work occurs. OSGeo >> Oceania provides the regional focus and allows us to coordinate regionally >> and to communicate global developments and efforts. >> >> >> >> - Therefore it is not appropriate that we set up a separate framework >> to replace OSGeo (not that I see that anyone has suggested this). >> >> >> >> - I see that the main reason for the perceived need for two tiers of >> membership within OSGeo Oceania (OO) is to ensure that: >> - We have people as directors of the legal entity who hold >> positive attributes that we admire. These attributes include: >> - acting for the greater good of OSGeo Oceania and OSGeo; >> - active and positive contributions to community activities; >> and >> - are of good and ethical repute. >> - >> - There is also a secondary requirement as highlighted by >> Alister: to remove Directors who won’t resign voluntarily from the OO >> legal >> entity at the end of their term, or who are not acting in the best >> interests of either OSGeo Oceania or OSGeo. >> >> >> >> - As noted by several people, the overheads of managing an additional >> membership process for OSGeo Oceania (in addition to that required for >> OSGeo) is likely to be onerous. However, we still need a two tier >> membership process to protect the best interests of the OSGeo and OSGeo >> communities and the OO Legal entity. >> >> >> >> - Therefore in the interest of keeping things simple, I propose the >> following variant to what has been discussed: >> - Keep a two tier membership process as outlined in the document. >> - The main membership categary comprises those who self nominate >> to be members of the OO Community, by signing up to one of the OSGeo >> Oceania mailing lists and participate in discussion and activities. >> - The second Charter Member category automatically comprises OSGeo >> Charter Members [1] who are also members of the OO Community. >> >> >> >> - This approach: >> - negates the need for having OO to manage a separate membership >> process >> - makes clear the relationship between OSGeo and OSGeo Oceania. >> - Uses existing and proven OSGeo contributers of good repute by >> way of OSGeo Charter Members. >> - Allows for new OSGeo Charter Members to be proposed from the >> OSGeo Oceania community within the tried and tested OSGeo Charter >> Member >> process. >> >> >> >> - There will still be the need to: >> - Define our membership levels and processes >> - Define and hold an election process (every two years?) to >> refresh our pool of board members / legal entity directors. >> - (probably) revise the OO Legal Enity’s Articles of Association >> to allow for a process for OSGeo Charter Members (within the to be >> defined >> Oceania region) to remove non-performing directors etc of the legal >> entity >> etc. >> >> >> I hope this helps. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Bruce >> >> [1] https://www.osgeo.org/about/charter-members/ >> >> >> >> >> On 23 Sep 2019, at 18:29, John Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks all for a quite robust discussion on this important topic, it's >> really great to see this much engagement. There seems to be a fair bit of >> discomfort with the two tier model proposed, and I agree that it may >> introduce more complexity than we really want. To move forward, I'd like to >> propose a simplified alternative: >> >> - We have a single type of membership that confers voting rights. >> - To ensure a reasonable level of engagement, while protecting the >> org against bad actors/hostile takeover/etc, we roughly follow this >> process: >> - take nominations for new members >> - use an eligibility threshold that balances accessibility with >> genuine engagement >> - include a ratification step that could be done by the board, or >> a membership working group (TBD) >> >> This doesn't capture all the detail of how this would work, but if it's >> acceptable in broad strokes, I can update our draft policy and we can work >> through the details over next couple of days. >> >> Any objections? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Oceania mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Oceania mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania >> > _______________________________________________ > Oceania mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania > -- Alex Leith m: 0419189050
_______________________________________________ Oceania mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
