Hey John I'm not sure about the 12 month qualifying period either, but I do think that having 'skin in the game' as Adam has said many times is important. If someone wants to be on the Board, the smallest hurdle is being a member and having the foresight to be a member, and presumably involved, for at least 12 months is not really a big deal.
That said though, you are right that we cannot override the constitution in our election process... So while we may 'define a process' in clause 79.1, I don't think we can further constrain eligibility, as per clause 74. So I think we need to remove this qualifier from the election process and refer to the constitution. Kind regards, On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:46, Martin Tomko <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, Adam, all > > I agree with your second point, John, that this should be covered by the > constitution. I awas myself uneasy with the decision that the board decides > this. > > > > I am not in agreement with the first point. I believe that we are now past > the ”storming and forming” stage of the organisation, and our initial days. > > I believe that to stand as a director, members need to demonstrate that a > member has been active for a period of time, in good faith. The issues OSM > had in the last year are a testament. The organisation is now managing > substantial funds, and carries responsibility. > > > > This could be addressed in a number of ways, in my eyes: > > > > - A candidate could have the backing of a number of members that have > been members for at least 12 months ( I suggest 3), if the candidate > themself were not a member for that period; > - A backing of a SIG could be equivalent. > > Anyway, I do not see a problem for people to wait for 12 month before > being nominated for a director. > > > > Martin > > > > *From: *Oceania <[email protected]> on behalf of John > Bryant <[email protected]> > *Date: *Sunday, 13 September 2020 at 10:38 pm > *To: *Adam Steer <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board > Election Process & Timeline > > > > Yes! We want the board to be made up of engaged and motivated people with > the community's best interests at heart. Our community is full of people > like this! I reckon our best bet is to articulate that vision, create the > conditions for those people to step forward and participate, and make sure > the members who elect the board have enough visibility into it all to make > informed decisions. > > > > Cheers > > John > > > > On Sun, 13 Sep 2020, 3:48 pm Adam Steer, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey John, all > > > > That clause was aimed at preventing people whos only interest is to get on > boards getting on the board, and has been a topic of debate. Based on your > input about the constitution its probably a good idea to just replace it > with ’nominees shall be nominated in accordance with clause 74 and 19.3 of > the constitution [link]) > > > > It is worth remembering we all just kinda nominated ourselves at the start. > > > > Cheers > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 05:43, John Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Great work, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the election > process. I've added a couple of comments to the Google doc, but I have a > specific concern that may need a little more room for discussion. > > > > In the proposed process, there is a section called "*Minimum term of > membership*", which says: > > *To be nominated as a Director, you must have been a Member for a minimum > of 12 months (calculated from closing date of elections). This ensures that > potential Directors have had the opportunity to participate in OSGeo > Oceania business, and gives the Board an opportunity to mentor those who > would like to take up leadership positions in the future.* > > > > I think there are a couple of issues with this: > > > > *1) It's not an effective way to assess someone's capability to act as a > director. * > > > > For example, I want to nominate Edwin Liava'a to stand in the next > election. Edwin was a keynote speaker at last year's conference in > Wellington, and has been a highly engaged leader in the Pacific open > geospatial community for many years. He's volunteered on a number of > committees that would count as OSGeo Oceania business. He's done plenty to > prove his dedication to this community, would be an asset to the > organisation, and would be an effective voice from the Pacific, which to > date has been missing from the board. > > > > But (as far as I can tell) Edwin's not currently a formal member, so by > this clause he wouldn't be qualified to serve as a director, even if he > became a member now. > > > > My point is, there are likely many people in our community who would be > excellent additions to the board, and the length of their membership > doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of their potential for contribution. > If someone has a valuable contribution to make, why would we want to put > this up as an obstacle? > > > > *2) It may not be within the board's scope to decide who is qualified to > serve as a future director.* > > > > Required qualifications to serve as a director are already defined in the > constitution > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kZD8pcW2efjLEY7ih3rzcWpe7X0hEG2A> > (section 74: simply, "*Each Director must be a Member*"). > > > > Members' rights to nominate are also defined there, subject to this > qualification (section 79.3: "*Any Member may nominate a person who is > eligible for appointment under clause 74 to serve as a Director.*"). > > > > I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use the election process to create > additional eligibility hurdles, it seems this might be impacting on > members' rights. > > > > If a nomination were declared ineligible based on this section in the > election process, could a constitutional challenge be made? If the election > process were found to be in conflict with the constitution, could this > potentially render the election invalid? Obviously it's a hypothetical, > unlikely scenario, but maybe not impossible. > > > > My feeling is the election process would be better without this section. > If there are new director eligibility requirements to add, it seems a lot > safer to stick to using constitution amendments, which would require formal > assent by the membership through a statutory process. > > > > Cheers > > John > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear OSGeo Oceania Members, > > > > Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing > directors to the board requires your review and feedback. > > > > You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1td2oDBssX_33yIFN1h0UgSvkoUa8MckZiix7nsIdmcs/edit?usp=sharing>. > We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to > this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on > Wednesday, September 23rd. > > > > The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and > timeline in early October. > > > > Thank you for your contribution! > > > > On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group > > _______________________________________________ > 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
