Hi John, Thanks for separating out this discussion. I appreciate that.
There is a lot to respond to here and myself and other board members have been mulling over it. I think it's best we discuss as a board after the conference to ensure positions are summarised fairly. Many of us are caught up in conference proceedings, much of which have been discussed openly on foss4g-ocea...@lists.osgeo.org. People are welcome to contribute to the discussion in the meantime and I sincerely hope we can make progress on the theme of openness. Thanks, Ed On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 23:22, John Bryant <johnwbry...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've split this into a new thread and removed the original private email, > which was posted by mistake. > > I'm very sorry to see Bruce choosing to step away, I have great respect > for his inputs over the last few years. I think it raises an important > issue for OSGeo Oceania and this community. > > I agree with Edoardo and Bruce that communications must be open, for > reasons both principled and pragmatic; this is what open source communities > are all about. > > OSGeo Oceania was created on a promise of transparency [1], and should > live up to that promise. The board in particular has the opportunity to > lead by example, and set the tone for this open community. > > I believe most of the current board agrees with this, and the 2021 board > got off to a great start, returning discussion to public lists, using a > public Loomio for voting on motions, and voting in favour of opening board > meetings [2]. Kudos to Edoardo for his huge efforts in leading this push. > > Part way through the year the board's public discussion seemed to drop off > considerably, immediately following a discussion about transparency > (ironically). > > As an outsider, I don't know what the board discusses in private. But if I > may speculate: there may be a small minority who prefer the board to > operate in private, and the force of their opposition to measures intended > to improve transparency could have a chilling effect on the rest of the > board's commitment to operate in public. > > I believe this dynamic, if it exists, is a severe detriment to the > functioning of the organisation, and I hope it comes to an end as soon as > possible. > > John > > [1] OSGeo Oceania Terms of Reference: > https://drive.google.com/file/d/13aZ6L08ke1-l32I7c00MahyEKgxeZkq8 > [2] https://www.loomio.org/d/f0xNZQKg/open-board-meetings > > > > On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 at 07:31, Bruce Bannerman < > bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Colleagues, >> >> I have spent around 15 years with OSGeo-AustNZ and now OSGeo-Oceania. >> This included working as a member of the FOSS4G-2009 Local Organising >> Committee. >> >> Eduardo is correct that in an open source community, communications MUST >> be open. >> >> For OSGeo-Oceania this means the oceania@lists.osgeo.org list. >> >> If I look at our list archives [1], I find very little in the way of open >> discussions. >> >> Imagine my surprise to find a FOSS4G event in Perth recently. I only >> found this in passing on a LinkedIn thread. >> >> This and the email thread below, is symptomatic of an organisation in >> trouble. >> >> We discussed the need for openness on this list over twelve months ago in >> response to the problems that the then Oceania Board was having. It is >> apparent that this advise has been ignored. >> >> I intend stepping back from OSGeo Oceania and focus my volunteer time >> elsewhere. >> >> I’m currently a list administrator. I no longer wish to hold this role. I >> suggest that the current board find a replacement. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Bruce >> >> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Oceania mailing list >> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania >> >
_______________________________________________ Oceania mailing list Oceania@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania