Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
Hi Cameron, I agree that we are discussing details, so no objection to the wording. On 07/05/2014 12:26 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote: Hi Angelos, I think your suggestion and mine are very close and we are now splitting hairs about details. We could use an absolute minimum number of votes, maybe 10 as you suggest, but I prefer 5% of charter members who voted which I think is more robust long term. Unless you (and others) have a very strong objection to the wording, I'd like to stick with the 5% wording. I'm going to resubmit the updated proposal to the board to vote on so we can move onto elections. I appreciate all the feedback as I think it has made the proposed process much better. On 2/07/2014 8:12 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: Hi Cameron, On 07/01/2014 11:02 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: On 1/07/2014 10:32 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: On 07/01/2014 01:40 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: --- Some specific answers below: On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? Good suggestion. Added ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted. So if there are 180 charter members, and say 100 vote, that would mean you would need 5 YES votes. In my opinion this threshold should be applied on the overall number of charter members, i.e. 5% of 180. Someone should have an absolute minimum of Yes votes (e.g. 10) in order to be elected, not a relative one. Hi Angelos, Your comments are valid. My reason for setting the number of votes low is: 1. I think it more important to err on being more inclusive than less. Agreed. 2. Over the next few years, with the relaxed selection criteria, I'd expect OSGeo Charter Membership to increase substantially over the next few years, so 5% this year would require 5 votes, next year probably 10 or 15, following year, probably 20 to 30. Then lets forget the percentage and set an absolute number, like how many members second the nomination (e.g. 5-10) 3. If active membership does drop off, having a % of votes rather than absolute number would make it easier for charter membership to revitalize itself later. Angelos -- Angelos Tzotsos Remote Sensing Laboratory National Technical University of Athens http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
Hi Angelos, I think your suggestion and mine are very close and we are now splitting hairs about details. We could use an absolute minimum number of votes, maybe 10 as you suggest, but I prefer 5% of charter members who voted which I think is more robust long term. Unless you (and others) have a very strong objection to the wording, I'd like to stick with the 5% wording. I'm going to resubmit the updated proposal to the board to vote on so we can move onto elections. I appreciate all the feedback as I think it has made the proposed process much better. On 2/07/2014 8:12 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: Hi Cameron, On 07/01/2014 11:02 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: On 1/07/2014 10:32 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: On 07/01/2014 01:40 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: --- Some specific answers below: On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? Good suggestion. Added ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted. So if there are 180 charter members, and say 100 vote, that would mean you would need 5 YES votes. In my opinion this threshold should be applied on the overall number of charter members, i.e. 5% of 180. Someone should have an absolute minimum of Yes votes (e.g. 10) in order to be elected, not a relative one. Hi Angelos, Your comments are valid. My reason for setting the number of votes low is: 1. I think it more important to err on being more inclusive than less. Agreed. 2. Over the next few years, with the relaxed selection criteria, I'd expect OSGeo Charter Membership to increase substantially over the next few years, so 5% this year would require 5 votes, next year probably 10 or 15, following year, probably 20 to 30. Then lets forget the percentage and set an absolute number, like how many members second the nomination (e.g. 5-10) 3. If active membership does drop off, having a % of votes rather than absolute number would make it easier for charter membership to revitalize itself later. Angelos -- Cameron Shorter, Software and Data Solutions Manager LISAsoft Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf, 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009 P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Hi Bruce, I agree that a nominating member should explain why a candidate is worth voting for (rather than a candidate promoting themselves). I think the words below address that. If you can think of a better way of expressing your intent, can you please suggest alternative wording. On 3/07/2014 10:34 am, Bruce Bannerman wrote: Cameron, There is perhaps one other aspect of the process that you may wish to review. This is the requirement for nominees to ‘beat their own chest’ saying how good they are. I think that this step is not required. What needs to be said, should be said by the person who is doing the nomination. There are also cultural issue to consider, where people do not feel comfortable doing this step. We also discussed this last year on Discuss [1]. Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2013-July/012079.html From: Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com mailto:cameron.shor...@gmail.com Date: Tuesday, 1 July 2014 8:40 pm Cc: Discuss OSGeo discuss@lists.osgeo.org mailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org, bo...@lists.osgeo.org mailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org bo...@lists.osgeo.org mailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members Thanks all for your comments. I've updated based on your feedback to: /1a. Charter member to nominate potential new charter member(s) (as before).// // //1b. A person who meets the Positive Attributes for Charter Members [1]//, may ask an charter member who can vouch for the person to nominate them. //2. Charter members then vote (in/out///*abstain*//) nominated charter members. This will be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of 30). For this year, I propose we have a Yes/No vote. Ie, if we have a list of 30 candidates, we will ask all charter members to vote Yes or No against each candidate. Each candidate with //*more YES votes than NO votes as well as greater than 5% of charter members who voted*//will be included as new charter members.// // //3. Charter members would be guided to select candidates who fit the Positive Attributes for Charter Members [1] // // //4. There will be no limit to the number of new charter members who can be selected. This will require an update of http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process// // //[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes/ --- Some specific answers below: On 30/06/2014 6:39 am, Alex Mandel wrote: The only reservation I have is on the 50% Yes/No, but maybe I just need a clarification. I see plenty of people potentially voting Yes/No/Abstain(just not marking a particular candidate). Good suggestion. Text updated to move YES votes than NO votes. On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? Good suggestion. Added ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted. So if there are 180 charter members, and say 100 vote, that would mean you would need 5 YES votes. On 30/06/2014 11:51 am, Eli Adam wrote: If the goal is to have an inclusive charter membership, then some of these voting methods would potentially better accommodate all nominees based on an evaluation of http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes. Even brought up that most OSGeo projects work on some form of consensus. 50%+ is nothing like consensus. I would support requiring much less opposition for approval. Perhaps no more than 5-10 no votes. For me, to vote no I will need to know the person very well and know that they lack all or most of these, http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes or I will need to know that they actively think or behave counter to one or more of those characteristics. Angelos brought up the idea of a minimum level of support. That could be combined with a minimal level of opposition. Good thoughts. I think there is a balance to be struck between being exclusive and inclusive, and I think it better to err on being more inclusive. Hopefully adding in ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted should address your concerns. On 30/06/2014 8:34 pm, Steven Feldman wrote: If we want to avoid /establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy/” then perhaps we need to consider ways of becoming a mass membership organisation rather than one governed by a self selecting elite group. I don't think we need worry to much about /establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy/”. By setting the above criteria, I think that anyone who fits the Positive Attributes will now find it easy to become a charter member. On 30/06/2014 8:34 pm, Steven Feldman wrote: Should we consider separating the Charter Members who could continue to be acknowledged for their contributions to OSGeo (but maybe by the whole
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Hi Cameron, I agree that on re-read the new wording covers this. Bruce From: Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.commailto:cameron.shor...@gmail.com Date: Friday, 4 July 2014 9:01 am To: Bruce Bannerman b.banner...@bom.gov.aumailto:b.banner...@bom.gov.au Cc: Discuss OSGeo discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org, bo...@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org bo...@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Hi Bruce, I agree that a nominating member should explain why a candidate is worth voting for (rather than a candidate promoting themselves). I think the words below address that. If you can think of a better way of expressing your intent, can you please suggest alternative wording. On 3/07/2014 10:34 am, Bruce Bannerman wrote: Cameron, There is perhaps one other aspect of the process that you may wish to review. This is the requirement for nominees to ‘beat their own chest’ saying how good they are. I think that this step is not required. What needs to be said, should be said by the person who is doing the nomination. There are also cultural issue to consider, where people do not feel comfortable doing this step. We also discussed this last year on Discuss [1]. Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2013-July/012079.html From: Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.commailto:cameron.shor...@gmail.com Date: Tuesday, 1 July 2014 8:40 pm Cc: Discuss OSGeo discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org, bo...@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org bo...@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members Thanks all for your comments. I've updated based on your feedback to: 1a. Charter member to nominate potential new charter member(s) (as before). 1b. A person who meets the Positive Attributes for Charter Members [1], may ask an charter member who can vouch for the person to nominate them. 2. Charter members then vote (in/out/abstain) nominated charter members. This will be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of 30). For this year, I propose we have a Yes/No vote. Ie, if we have a list of 30 candidates, we will ask all charter members to vote Yes or No against each candidate. Each candidate with more YES votes than NO votes as well as greater than 5% of charter members who voted will be included as new charter members. 3. Charter members would be guided to select candidates who fit the Positive Attributes for Charter Members [1] 4. There will be no limit to the number of new charter members who can be selected. This will require an update of http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes --- Some specific answers below: On 30/06/2014 6:39 am, Alex Mandel wrote: The only reservation I have is on the 50% Yes/No, but maybe I just need a clarification. I see plenty of people potentially voting Yes/No/Abstain(just not marking a particular candidate). Good suggestion. Text updated to move YES votes than NO votes. On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? Good suggestion. Added ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted. So if there are 180 charter members, and say 100 vote, that would mean you would need 5 YES votes. On 30/06/2014 11:51 am, Eli Adam wrote: If the goal is to have an inclusive charter membership, then some of these voting methods would potentially better accommodate all nominees based on an evaluation of http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes. Even brought up that most OSGeo projects work on some form of consensus. 50%+ is nothing like consensus. I would support requiring much less opposition for approval. Perhaps no more than 5-10 no votes. For me, to vote no I will need to know the person very well and know that they lack all or most of these, http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes or I will need to know that they actively think or behave counter to one or more of those characteristics. Angelos brought up the idea of a minimum level of support. That could be combined with a minimal level of opposition. Good thoughts. I think there is a balance to be struck between being exclusive and inclusive, and I think it better to err on being more inclusive. Hopefully adding in ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted should address your concerns. On 30/06/2014 8:34 pm, Steven Feldman wrote: If we want to avoid establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy” then perhaps we need to consider ways of becoming a mass membership organisation rather than
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Cameron, There is perhaps one other aspect of the process that you may wish to review. This is the requirement for nominees to ‘beat their own chest’ saying how good they are. I think that this step is not required. What needs to be said, should be said by the person who is doing the nomination. There are also cultural issue to consider, where people do not feel comfortable doing this step. We also discussed this last year on Discuss [1]. Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2013-July/012079.html From: Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.commailto:cameron.shor...@gmail.com Date: Tuesday, 1 July 2014 8:40 pm Cc: Discuss OSGeo discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org, bo...@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org bo...@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members Thanks all for your comments. I've updated based on your feedback to: 1a. Charter member to nominate potential new charter member(s) (as before). 1b. A person who meets the Positive Attributes for Charter Members [1], may ask an charter member who can vouch for the person to nominate them. 2. Charter members then vote (in/out/abstain) nominated charter members. This will be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of 30). For this year, I propose we have a Yes/No vote. Ie, if we have a list of 30 candidates, we will ask all charter members to vote Yes or No against each candidate. Each candidate with more YES votes than NO votes as well as greater than 5% of charter members who voted will be included as new charter members. 3. Charter members would be guided to select candidates who fit the Positive Attributes for Charter Members [1] 4. There will be no limit to the number of new charter members who can be selected. This will require an update of http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes --- Some specific answers below: On 30/06/2014 6:39 am, Alex Mandel wrote: The only reservation I have is on the 50% Yes/No, but maybe I just need a clarification. I see plenty of people potentially voting Yes/No/Abstain(just not marking a particular candidate). Good suggestion. Text updated to move YES votes than NO votes. On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? Good suggestion. Added ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted. So if there are 180 charter members, and say 100 vote, that would mean you would need 5 YES votes. On 30/06/2014 11:51 am, Eli Adam wrote: If the goal is to have an inclusive charter membership, then some of these voting methods would potentially better accommodate all nominees based on an evaluation of http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes. Even brought up that most OSGeo projects work on some form of consensus. 50%+ is nothing like consensus. I would support requiring much less opposition for approval. Perhaps no more than 5-10 no votes. For me, to vote no I will need to know the person very well and know that they lack all or most of these, http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes or I will need to know that they actively think or behave counter to one or more of those characteristics. Angelos brought up the idea of a minimum level of support. That could be combined with a minimal level of opposition. Good thoughts. I think there is a balance to be struck between being exclusive and inclusive, and I think it better to err on being more inclusive. Hopefully adding in ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted should address your concerns. On 30/06/2014 8:34 pm, Steven Feldman wrote: If we want to avoid establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy” then perhaps we need to consider ways of becoming a mass membership organisation rather than one governed by a self selecting elite group. I don't think we need worry to much about establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy”. By setting the above criteria, I think that anyone who fits the Positive Attributes will now find it easy to become a charter member. On 30/06/2014 8:34 pm, Steven Feldman wrote: Should we consider separating the Charter Members who could continue to be acknowledged for their contributions to OSGeo (but maybe by the whole membership not just existing Charter Members) from the process of voting for the board? If we want to be open and inclusive we need to empower a larger group of contributors to vote for the people who set policy and manage our organisation. Perhaps it could be a requirement for board membership that candidates have already been voted as charter members by the wider membership. We could go for something like
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
Thanks all for your comments. I've updated based on your feedback to: /1a. Charter member to nominate potential new charter member(s) (as before).// // //1b. A person who meets the Positive Attributes for Charter Members [1]//, may ask an charter member who can vouch for the person to nominate them. //2. Charter members then vote (in/out///*abstain*//) nominated charter members. This will be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of 30). For this year, I propose we have a Yes/No vote. Ie, if we have a list of 30 candidates, we will ask all charter members to vote Yes or No against each candidate. Each candidate with //*more YES votes than NO votes as well as greater than 5% of charter members who voted*//will be included as new charter members.// // //3. Charter members would be guided to select candidates who fit the Positive Attributes for Charter Members [1] // // //4. There will be no limit to the number of new charter members who can be selected. This will require an update of http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process// // //[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes/ --- Some specific answers below: On 30/06/2014 6:39 am, Alex Mandel wrote: The only reservation I have is on the 50% Yes/No, but maybe I just need a clarification. I see plenty of people potentially voting Yes/No/Abstain(just not marking a particular candidate). Good suggestion. Text updated to move YES votes than NO votes. On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? Good suggestion. Added ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted. So if there are 180 charter members, and say 100 vote, that would mean you would need 5 YES votes. On 30/06/2014 11:51 am, Eli Adam wrote: If the goal is to have an inclusive charter membership, then some of these voting methods would potentially better accommodate all nominees based on an evaluation of http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes. Even brought up that most OSGeo projects work on some form of consensus. 50%+ is nothing like consensus. I would support requiring much less opposition for approval. Perhaps no more than 5-10 no votes. For me, to vote no I will need to know the person very well and know that they lack all or most of these, http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes or I will need to know that they actively think or behave counter to one or more of those characteristics. Angelos brought up the idea of a minimum level of support. That could be combined with a minimal level of opposition. Good thoughts. I think there is a balance to be struck between being exclusive and inclusive, and I think it better to err on being more inclusive. Hopefully adding in ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted should address your concerns. On 30/06/2014 8:34 pm, Steven Feldman wrote: If we want to avoid /establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy/ then perhaps we need to consider ways of becoming a mass membership organisation rather than one governed by a self selecting elite group. I don't think we need worry to much about /establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy/. By setting the above criteria, I think that anyone who fits the Positive Attributes will now find it easy to become a charter member. On 30/06/2014 8:34 pm, Steven Feldman wrote: Should we consider separating the Charter Members who could continue to be acknowledged for their contributions to OSGeo (but maybe by the whole membership not just existing Charter Members) from the process of voting for the board? If we want to be open and inclusive we need to empower a larger group of contributors to vote for the people who set policy and manage our organisation. Perhaps it could be a requirement for board membership that candidates have already been voted as charter members by the wider membership. We could go for something like the OSM Foundation where membership at £15/yr entitles you to vote for the Foundation Board or we could go for a free membership category with some qualifying criteria. Adding membership dues for membership breaks our Bylaws, (see below) and is not something that I'm ready to champion changing before the next election. (I expect a lawyer would be required to make this happen). Adding another membership category could be added, but lets take this as a separate issue. On 30/06/2014 6:58 pm, Even Rouault wrote: Not answering on behalf of Peter, but a potential idea to solve those issues would be to combine Cameron proposal of a yes/no vote on each nominee + allow people to self-nominate them (as you do in political elections). That should help solving the self-sustaining oligarchy We could add a rule that a self-nominee must at least
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
Hi Cameron, On 07/01/2014 01:40 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: --- Some specific answers below: On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? Good suggestion. Added ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted. So if there are 180 charter members, and say 100 vote, that would mean you would need 5 YES votes. In my opinion this threshold should be applied on the overall number of charter members, i.e. 5% of 180. Someone should have an absolute minimum of Yes votes (e.g. 10) in order to be elected, not a relative one. ___ Board mailing list bo...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board -- Angelos Tzotsos Remote Sensing Laboratory National Technical University of Athens http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
On 1/07/2014 10:32 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: On 07/01/2014 01:40 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: --- Some specific answers below: On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? Good suggestion. Added ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted. So if there are 180 charter members, and say 100 vote, that would mean you would need 5 YES votes. In my opinion this threshold should be applied on the overall number of charter members, i.e. 5% of 180. Someone should have an absolute minimum of Yes votes (e.g. 10) in order to be elected, not a relative one. Hi Angelos, Your comments are valid. My reason for setting the number of votes low is: 1. I think it more important to err on being more inclusive than less. 2. Over the next few years, with the relaxed selection criteria, I'd expect OSGeo Charter Membership to increase substantially over the next few years, so 5% this year would require 5 votes, next year probably 10 or 15, following year, probably 20 to 30. 3. If active membership does drop off, having a % of votes rather than absolute number would make it easier for charter membership to revitalize itself later. -- Cameron Shorter, Software and Data Solutions Manager LISAsoft Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf, 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009 P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
Hi Cameron, On 07/01/2014 11:02 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: On 1/07/2014 10:32 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: On 07/01/2014 01:40 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: --- Some specific answers below: On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? Good suggestion. Added ..as well as 5% of charter members who voted. So if there are 180 charter members, and say 100 vote, that would mean you would need 5 YES votes. In my opinion this threshold should be applied on the overall number of charter members, i.e. 5% of 180. Someone should have an absolute minimum of Yes votes (e.g. 10) in order to be elected, not a relative one. Hi Angelos, Your comments are valid. My reason for setting the number of votes low is: 1. I think it more important to err on being more inclusive than less. Agreed. 2. Over the next few years, with the relaxed selection criteria, I'd expect OSGeo Charter Membership to increase substantially over the next few years, so 5% this year would require 5 votes, next year probably 10 or 15, following year, probably 20 to 30. Then lets forget the percentage and set an absolute number, like how many members second the nomination (e.g. 5-10) 3. If active membership does drop off, having a % of votes rather than absolute number would make it easier for charter membership to revitalize itself later. Angelos -- Angelos Tzotsos Remote Sensing Laboratory National Technical University of Athens http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
Selon Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl: Hey Peter, so what would be your suggestions to make the process more of the 4 bullet points you mentioned? Not answering on behalf of Peter, but a potential idea to solve those issues would be to combine Cameron proposal of a yes/no vote on each nominee + allow people to self-nominate them (as you do in political elections). That should help solving the self-sustaining oligarchy We could add a rule that a self-nominee must at least be seconded by at least X charter member(s). Such a rule would not particuarly shoking to avoid unrelevant candidates (e.g. in France to be candidate to the presidential election you must have at least support from at least 500 already elected persons : mayors, deputies, etc... But such a rule is regularly contested by small candidates.) Or we could not make it a rule, but allow charter members to express their support for the candidature of a self-nominee. At least, this would help solving the following 2 problems of our current process : - people that are excluded because noone thought of nominating them - people that are excluded because of the limited number of new members (although that has not been a practical problem the last 2 years since all nominees have been accepted) I think OSGeo already works in an open and transparent way. The point of democracy is perhaps to be better adressed, but there is a subtle balance to find between oligarchy and a too big dilution of the values. In a democracy you always have rules to define who can be elected and who can vote. Even Best regards, Bart On 30 Jun 2014, at 09:24, Peter Baumann p.baum...@jacobs-university.de wrote: Cameron all, a lot of serious, involved work is going on on this thread; however, some core issues which I tried to phrase, but Steven (Feldman) expressed much crisper, still remain unaddressed by the currently voted proposal: Inclusiveness Democracy Growth Openness The proposal as it stands is in high danger of establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy. I am concerned that a body that claims to have international impact (through project branding) high responsibility must be exercised in terms of transparency, openness, and democratic principles. -Peter On 06/29/2014 10:26 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: OSGeo board, In the interests of making a decision such that Jorge Salinas (our CRO) can move forward, I propose the following process be followed for voting new charter members in 2014: 1. Charter member to nominate potential new charter member(s) (as before). 2. Charter members then vote (in/out) nominated charter members. This will be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of 30). For this year, I propose we have a Yes/No vote. Ie, if we have a list of 30 candidates, we will ask all charter members to vote Yes or No against each candidate. Each candidate with greater than 50% of YES votes will be included as new charter members. 3. Charter members would be guided to select candidates who fit the Positive Attributes for Charter Members as defined here: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes 4. There will be no limit to the number of new charter members who can be selected. This will require an update of http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process 5. Note: This vote is being put to the board and not to charter members as I don't wish to complicate this decision by adding a 2nd (positive) idea for change. We can address getting charter members to vote on issues as a separate motion. Board members, can you please all vote on above: +1 Cameron On 25/06/2014 9:31 pm, Cameron Shorter wrote: Following the community discussion, I further researched OSGeo's foundation documents, (in retrospect I should have done this earlier). Of particular relevance to current discussion is our ByLaws: http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html Section 7.1. Admission of [Charter] Members. An initial group of up to forty-five (45) persons shall be admitted as the initial [charter] members of the corporation upon the affirmative vote of the Board of Directors of the corporation. Thereafter, to be eligible for [charter] membership, a person must be nominated by an existing [charter] member of the corporation pursuant to a written document in such form as shall be adopted by the Board of Directors from time to time. The nomination must be included in a notice to the [charter] members at least ten (10) days in advance of the meeting at which the [charter] members will vote on the applicants admission. Proposed [charter] members shall be admitted upon the affirmative vote of the members of the corporation. This section implies that the proposal below of automatically accepting Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders is
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
If we want to avoid establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy” then perhaps we need to consider ways of becoming a mass membership organisation rather than one governed by a self selecting elite group. Should we consider separating the Charter Members who could continue to be acknowledged for their contributions to OSGeo (but maybe by the whole membership not just existing Charter Members) from the process of voting for the board? If we want to be open and inclusive we need to empower a larger group of contributors to vote for the people who set policy and manage our organisation. Perhaps it could be a requirement for board membership that candidates have already been voted as charter members by the wider membership. We could go for something like the OSM Foundation where membership at £15/yr entitles you to vote for the Foundation Board or we could go for a free membership category with some qualifying criteria. __ Steven On 30 Jun 2014, at 09:58, board-requ...@lists.osgeo.org wrote: From: Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl Subject: Re: [Board] [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members Date: 30 June 2014 08:27:08 BST To: Peter Baumann p.baum...@jacobs-university.de Cc: discuss@lists.osgeo.org, bo...@lists.osgeo.org bo...@lists.osgeo.org Hey Peter, so what would be your suggestions to make the process more of the 4 bullet points you mentioned? Best regards, Bart On 30 Jun 2014, at 09:24, Peter Baumann p.baum...@jacobs-university.de wrote: Cameron all, a lot of serious, involved work is going on on this thread; however, some core issues which I tried to phrase, but Steven (Feldman) expressed much crisper, still remain unaddressed by the currently voted proposal: Inclusiveness Democracy Growth Openness The proposal as it stands is in high danger of establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy. I am concerned that a body that claims to have international impact (through project branding) high responsibility must be exercised in terms of transparency, openness, and democratic principles. -Peter ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
Board members need to be charter members already: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Election_Procedure Best regards, Bart On 30 Jun 2014, at 12:34, Steven Feldman shfeld...@gmail.com wrote: If we want to avoid establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy” then perhaps we need to consider ways of becoming a mass membership organisation rather than one governed by a self selecting elite group. Should we consider separating the Charter Members who could continue to be acknowledged for their contributions to OSGeo (but maybe by the whole membership not just existing Charter Members) from the process of voting for the board? If we want to be open and inclusive we need to empower a larger group of contributors to vote for the people who set policy and manage our organisation. Perhaps it could be a requirement for board membership that candidates have already been voted as charter members by the wider membership. We could go for something like the OSM Foundation where membership at £15/yr entitles you to vote for the Foundation Board or we could go for a free membership category with some qualifying criteria. __ Steven On 30 Jun 2014, at 09:58, board-requ...@lists.osgeo.org wrote: From: Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl Subject: Re: [Board] [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members Date: 30 June 2014 08:27:08 BST To: Peter Baumann p.baum...@jacobs-university.de Cc: discuss@lists.osgeo.org, bo...@lists.osgeo.org bo...@lists.osgeo.org Hey Peter, so what would be your suggestions to make the process more of the 4 bullet points you mentioned? Best regards, Bart On 30 Jun 2014, at 09:24, Peter Baumann p.baum...@jacobs-university.de wrote: Cameron all, a lot of serious, involved work is going on on this thread; however, some core issues which I tried to phrase, but Steven (Feldman) expressed much crisper, still remain unaddressed by the currently voted proposal: Inclusiveness Democracy Growth Openness The proposal as it stands is in high danger of establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy. I am concerned that a body that claims to have international impact (through project branding) high responsibility must be exercised in terms of transparency, openness, and democratic principles. -Peter ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
Apologies, typo on my part, should have read: Perhaps it could CONTINUE TO be a requirement for board membership that candidates have already been voted as charter members by the wider membership __ Steven On 30 Jun 2014, at 12:04, Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl wrote: Board members need to be charter members already: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Election_Procedure Best regards, Bart On 30 Jun 2014, at 12:34, Steven Feldman shfeld...@gmail.com wrote: If we want to avoid establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy” then perhaps we need to consider ways of becoming a mass membership organisation rather than one governed by a self selecting elite group. Should we consider separating the Charter Members who could continue to be acknowledged for their contributions to OSGeo (but maybe by the whole membership not just existing Charter Members) from the process of voting for the board? If we want to be open and inclusive we need to empower a larger group of contributors to vote for the people who set policy and manage our organisation. Perhaps it could be a requirement for board membership that candidates have already been voted as charter members by the wider membership. We could go for something like the OSM Foundation where membership at £15/yr entitles you to vote for the Foundation Board or we could go for a free membership category with some qualifying criteria. __ Steven On 30 Jun 2014, at 09:58, board-requ...@lists.osgeo.org wrote: From: Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl Subject: Re: [Board] [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members Date: 30 June 2014 08:27:08 BST To: Peter Baumann p.baum...@jacobs-university.de Cc: discuss@lists.osgeo.org, bo...@lists.osgeo.org bo...@lists.osgeo.org Hey Peter, so what would be your suggestions to make the process more of the 4 bullet points you mentioned? Best regards, Bart On 30 Jun 2014, at 09:24, Peter Baumann p.baum...@jacobs-university.de wrote: Cameron all, a lot of serious, involved work is going on on this thread; however, some core issues which I tried to phrase, but Steven (Feldman) expressed much crisper, still remain unaddressed by the currently voted proposal: Inclusiveness Democracy Growth Openness The proposal as it stands is in high danger of establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy. I am concerned that a body that claims to have international impact (through project branding) high responsibility must be exercised in terms of transparency, openness, and democratic principles. -Peter ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
2. Charter members then vote (in/out) nominated charter members. This will be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of 30). For this year, I propose we have a Yes/No vote. Ie, if we have a list of 30 candidates, we will ask all charter members to vote Yes or No against each candidate. Each candidate with greater than 50% of YES votes will be included as new charter members. Well, I doubt some charter member would vote with No for candidates. And what if you don't know a candidate well enough or not at all? So I'm not sure this is really a good idea. I believe the result will just be that all candidates will be accepted ... as in previous years. Daniel -- Georepublic UG Georepublic Japan eMail: daniel.ka...@georepublic.de Web: http://georepublic.info ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
On 06/30/2014 12:07 AM, Daniel Kastl wrote: 2. Charter members then vote (in/out) nominated charter members. This will be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of 30). For this year, I propose we have a Yes/No vote. Ie, if we have a list of 30 candidates, we will ask all charter members to vote Yes or No against each candidate. Each candidate with greater than 50% of YES votes will be included as new charter members. Well, I doubt some charter member would vote with No for candidates. And what if you don't know a candidate well enough or not at all? So I'm not sure this is really a good idea. I believe the result will just be that all candidates will be accepted ... as in previous years. Daniel Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? Angelos -- Angelos Tzotsos Remote Sensing Laboratory National Technical University of Athens http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Angelos Tzotsos gcpp.kal...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/30/2014 12:07 AM, Daniel Kastl wrote: 2. Charter members then vote (in/out) nominated charter members. This will be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of 30). For this year, I propose we have a Yes/No vote. Ie, if we have a list of 30 candidates, we will ask all charter members to vote Yes or No against each candidate. Each candidate with greater than 50% of YES votes will be included as new charter members. Well, I doubt some charter member would vote with No for candidates. And what if you don't know a candidate well enough or not at all? So I'm not sure this is really a good idea. I believe the result will just be that all candidates will be accepted ... as in previous years. Daniel Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? If the goal is to have an inclusive charter membership, then some of these voting methods would potentially better accommodate all nominees based on an evaluation of http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes. Even brought up that most OSGeo projects work on some form of consensus. 50%+ is nothing like consensus. I would support requiring much less opposition for approval. Perhaps no more than 5-10 no votes. For me, to vote no I will need to know the person very well and know that they lack all or most of these, http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes or I will need to know that they actively think or behave counter to one or more of those characteristics. Angelos brought up the idea of a minimum level of support. That could be combined with a minimal level of opposition. I know that the process needs proceed soon. Eli Angelos -- Angelos Tzotsos Remote Sensing Laboratory National Technical University of Athens http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
Hi, a refreshing way to select charter members, in deed. Hope charter members spend some time to, 'read and vote'. May be a wake-up-call. Ravi Kumar On Monday, June 30, 2014 5:31 AM, Angelos Tzotsos gcpp.kal...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/30/2014 12:07 AM, Daniel Kastl wrote: 2. Charter members then vote (in/out) nominated charter members. This will be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of 30). For this year, I propose we have a Yes/No vote. Ie, if we have a list of 30 candidates, we will ask all charter members to vote Yes or No against each candidate. Each candidate with greater than 50% of YES votes will be included as new charter members. Well, I doubt some charter member would vote with No for candidates. And what if you don't know a candidate well enough or not at all? So I'm not sure this is really a good idea. I believe the result will just be that all candidates will be accepted ... as in previous years. Daniel Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? Angelos -- Angelos Tzotsos Remote Sensing Laboratory National Technical University of Athens http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
