Hi John, I submitted my application to be a member of the Oceania Chapter during FOSS4G in Wellington 2019.
Apparently it didn't happen or it was not approved? We were all there at the AGM but I don't know what happened and I've never received a single email from the list until I subscribed to the mailing list last week :) Anyway, it's not a big deal for me since we are all volunteers and if my contribution is not needed by the members of this chapter then I'll move on and keep doing what I do best in promoting FOSS in my own way, as I used to. cheers, Edwin On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 12:27, John Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks, I agree that directors should have "skin in the game" as well, but a > simple 12 month membership requirement would probably disqualify some people > who'd be great. Martin's suggested modifications could perhaps help address > this. But I still think it would need to be addressed in the constitution, > and not by board-level decision. > > Cheers > John > > > > On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:59, Alex Leith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 (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. 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 _______________________________________________ Oceania mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
