Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of view

[Massimiliano Cannata]

Vasile, Thanks.

On the election, I think fair play should not be an option in our
community. I hope we're not loosing respect and ethics... getting closer to
politicians...

I hope 2018 will be the OSGeo year of "open values" and "reach in" to
remember our roots.

Maxi



Il 25 ott 2017 11:06 PM, "María Arias de Reyna" 
ha scritto:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Anita Graser  wrote:
>
>> Thank you for your summary and assessment of the situation, Vasile!
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Jody Garnett 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not sure I have collected my own thoughts, in the interests of
>>> meeting your request I would like to ask if the current board members are
>>> available for 14:00 UTC tomorrow.
>>>
>>
>> ​I can't guarantee that I'll be able to make it, but here are my thoughts:
>>
>> 1) +1 Vasile's recommendation "to create a clear rule stating that an
>> accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start of the voting
>> period", and therefore
>>
>> 2) +1 the recommendation "not to admit the [withdrawal] request from Jef"
>>
>> 3) +1 "not to start new elections" for the reasons summarized by Vasile
>>
>
>
> Although it is true that this hasn't been very peaceful elections, I am
> against of restarting the elections. If this is a democracy, let us decide
> if we want to vote or not for someone. And if after the elections that
> person feels that there is too much pressure and cannot stand it, then let
> that person resign. And if we make a mistake and vote for someone who is a
> bad choice, well, we will learn and not vote for that person again, right?
> That's the beauty (and the beast) of the democracy. Mistakes can be made,
> but they are not forever.
>
> And this goes also for all the people who did campaign aggresively (public
> and privately) against one of the candidates. It is good to ask about
> things that worry you and to expose what you think it is a failure. But if
> there is nothing on the rules that prevents that person to be elected, as
> it was the case (maybe because of a loophole, but rules didn't explicitly
> say he couldn't be elected), then that's it. There is no need to push that
> to the personal level.
>
> Thanks a lot Vasile for the work done. I have no doubt you did the best on
> this case. And I hope the new board can work on your suggestions, I think
> they are the right path to go. And reinforce the rules to cover extreme
> cases.
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of view

[María Arias de Reyna]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Anita Graser  wrote:

> Thank you for your summary and assessment of the situation, Vasile!
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Jody Garnett 
> wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure I have collected my own thoughts, in the interests of
>> meeting your request I would like to ask if the current board members are
>> available for 14:00 UTC tomorrow.
>>
>
> ​I can't guarantee that I'll be able to make it, but here are my thoughts:
>
> 1) +1 Vasile's recommendation "to create a clear rule stating that an
> accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start of the voting
> period", and therefore
>
> 2) +1 the recommendation "not to admit the [withdrawal] request from Jef"
>
> 3) +1 "not to start new elections" for the reasons summarized by Vasile
>


Although it is true that this hasn't been very peaceful elections, I am
against of restarting the elections. If this is a democracy, let us decide
if we want to vote or not for someone. And if after the elections that
person feels that there is too much pressure and cannot stand it, then let
that person resign. And if we make a mistake and vote for someone who is a
bad choice, well, we will learn and not vote for that person again, right?
That's the beauty (and the beast) of the democracy. Mistakes can be made,
but they are not forever.

And this goes also for all the people who did campaign aggresively (public
and privately) against one of the candidates. It is good to ask about
things that worry you and to expose what you think it is a failure. But if
there is nothing on the rules that prevents that person to be elected, as
it was the case (maybe because of a loophole, but rules didn't explicitly
say he couldn't be elected), then that's it. There is no need to push that
to the personal level.

Thanks a lot Vasile for the work done. I have no doubt you did the best on
this case. And I hope the new board can work on your suggestions, I think
they are the right path to go. And reinforce the rules to cover extreme
cases.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of view

[Michael Smith]

I should be able to make it tomorrow but I will publish my thoughts here. 

1) while we have had something more involved in previous years, the end result 
was the same. I’d really hate to change the process again so quickly although I 
do like the template idea. Maybe via form on the wiki or something. But if 
people really don’t like the new process I’m not that against changing it but 
if we do change it, imho it needs to be done right after the election and not 
close to next years process. 

2) I still feel that nothing bad was followed here. I think recusal from CRO 
after nomination is reasonable as long as it’s before voting or setup etc. 

3) since these are all voluntary positions, I feel that any one should be able 
to withdraw if that’s what they feel is necessary. We don’t know what all went 
into the decision but I believe that anyone nominated would act in a heartfelt 
and considered manner. If Jeff felt the need to withdraw, I think we need to 
respect that, even if during the election. The end result is the same as if he 
withdraws after, except that some people had more info to make a decision.  
This could happen to anyone if their circumstances changes. It’s something I 
think we have to allow for as real life can interfere with our best intentions. 


Finally I agree with the decision to not redo the election. If there was 
something that interferes with integrity of the election, then there would be 
cause but these are just, frankly, almost to be expected issues. We are just 
fortunate that we haven’t been as affected by these in previous years. 


Michael Smith
OSGeo Treasurer 

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Vasile Craciunescu  
> wrote:
> 
> Dear Board directors and dear members of OSGeo community,
> 
> This year elections [1] will end in less than 7 hours and it is time for me, 
> as CRO, to make a short assessment and to issue a few recommendations.
> 
> As you all know, during the process we had a few situations that caused 
> tension and discontent to an important number of our members. I will go 
> through the most important ones.
> 
> 1. This year membership process [2] was a very lite one. The basic rule for 
> becoming a charter member was to be nominated by one existing member and to 
> be seconded by at least one other existing member. This lite approach was in 
> line with the new OSGeo Vision and Mission Statement which is focused on 
> being inclusive [3]. However, during the nomination period, many of our 
> members considered the new membership process way too inclusive/lite, causing 
> a diminution in the importance of the charter member position. Another 
> subject that produced criticism was related to the fact that some of the 
> nominations were considered short in content and did not offer enough 
> information on the "positive attributes" [4] that a potential member shall 
> have. Finally, one of the charter member responsibilities [5], "Be aware of 
> and protect against a takeover of OSGeo by single group or viewpoint.", was 
> also a subject of dispute. My recommendations for the future board are to: 
> (a) Change the existing membership process with another one more balanced, 
> that assures both inclusiveness and a consistent weight for the charter 
> member position. Of course, this new mechanism should be discussed with the 
> community; (b) Impose a a very light template for the new nominations. This 
> way, all the nominations will be consistent and comparable. (c) Rephrase 
> responsibility no. 3 of the charter members. The meaning should be kept bu 
> the wording should not sound that martial.
> 
> 2. Jeff was nominated for the board of directors while was serving as co-CRO. 
> Even if the nominee steeped down immediately from the co-CRO position, the 
> access to the c...@osgeo.org was immediately cut-off and he never had access 
> to the electronic voting system, criticism over the potential conflict of 
> interest and elections credibility was raised. My recommendation for the 
> board is to make a specific rule that a nomination/candidacy for/from a 
> person that is acting as CRO or has any other role in the election management 
> is not acceptable.
> 
> 3. During the voting period Jeff sent a request to withdraw from the 
> elections due to the negative feedback. This also started a vivid debate. My 
> recommendation for the board is to create a clear rule stating that an 
> accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start of the voting period. 
> Of course, elected persons can always resign for various reasons.
> 
> Regarding the current status of the elections. 311 from a total of 390 
> members voted (80%). Due to the final reminder sent today there are chances 
> to improve the voting participation.
> 
> In my previous message I was proposing to accept Jeff's withdraw request but 
> to continue the elections without any modification to the voting list. After 
> more study on different voting systems and 

[OSGeo-Discuss] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of view

[Vasile Craciunescu]

Dear Board directors and dear members of OSGeo community,

This year elections [1] will end in less than 7 hours and it is time for 
me, as CRO, to make a short assessment and to issue a few recommendations.


As you all know, during the process we had a few situations that caused 
tension and discontent to an important number of our members. I will go 
through the most important ones.


1. This year membership process [2] was a very lite one. The basic rule 
for becoming a charter member was to be nominated by one existing member 
and to be seconded by at least one other existing member. This lite 
approach was in line with the new OSGeo Vision and Mission Statement 
which is focused on being inclusive [3]. However, during the nomination 
period, many of our members considered the new membership process way 
too inclusive/lite, causing a diminution in the importance of the 
charter member position. Another subject that produced criticism was 
related to the fact that some of the nominations were considered short 
in content and did not offer enough information on the "positive 
attributes" [4] that a potential member shall have. Finally, one of the 
charter member responsibilities [5], "Be aware of and protect against a 
takeover of OSGeo by single group or viewpoint.", was also a subject of 
dispute. My recommendations for the future board are to: (a) Change the 
existing membership process with another one more balanced, that assures 
both inclusiveness and a consistent weight for the charter member 
position. Of course, this new mechanism should be discussed with the 
community; (b) Impose a a very light template for the new nominations. 
This way, all the nominations will be consistent and comparable. (c) 
Rephrase responsibility no. 3 of the charter members. The meaning should 
be kept bu the wording should not sound that martial.


2. Jeff was nominated for the board of directors while was serving as 
co-CRO. Even if the nominee steeped down immediately from the co-CRO 
position, the access to the c...@osgeo.org was immediately cut-off and he 
never had access to the electronic voting system, criticism over the 
potential conflict of interest and elections credibility was raised. My 
recommendation for the board is to make a specific rule that a 
nomination/candidacy for/from a person that is acting as CRO or has any 
other role in the election management is not acceptable.


3. During the voting period Jeff sent a request to withdraw from the 
elections due to the negative feedback. This also started a vivid 
debate. My recommendation for the board is to create a clear rule 
stating that an accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start 
of the voting period. Of course, elected persons can always resign for 
various reasons.


Regarding the current status of the elections. 311 from a total of 390 
members voted (80%). Due to the final reminder sent today there are 
chances to improve the voting participation.


In my previous message I was proposing to accept Jeff's withdraw request 
but to continue the elections without any modification to the voting 
list. After more study on different voting systems and after going 
through your feedback, my decision and proposal for the board is not to 
admit the request from Jeff. Such requests are not possible in this kind 
of elections elsewhere. It is true that we have no specific rule for 
that in our bylaws. As I mentioned before, this should change. After the 
release of the elections results, and if Jeff is elected, it's up to him 
to decide if he goes on with the mandate or if he is resigning. This 
decision should be a very fast one, without further discussions on the 
mailing list, with all the possible arguments being already on the table.


The other option that the board can consider is to entirely restart the 
board elections cycle (or only the voting part for the remaining 8 
nominations). Even if this looks like the most correct way to go, 
looking on how the elections went before and after Jeff announcement, I 
can say, without disclosing anything about the final results, that the 
announcement did not changed the way people were voting. Of course, this 
is not a fact, is just my conclusion after looking at the trends. After 
the elections, beside the final numbers, I will also publish the 
evolution of the votes (every single vote and the timestamp, anonymized 
of course). Other important reasons for the board not to start new 
elections are: (a) The community is very irritated about this never 
ending stories and people are waiting to move forward and do the things 
we usually do. For most of them, the arguments for restarting the 
elections are not strong enough; (b) Four of our current board members 
are also running in this elections. Although that personally I have no 
doubts that each one of them will position/vote/decide correctly, only 
in the interest of the community, some objections on the 
position/vote/decision 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of view

[Marc Vloemans]

Thanks Vasile,

You managed to cut down to the things that really mattered and that we can all 
learn from.
Impressive clear and comprehensive summary. I hope his advice will be weighed 
and incorporated into future policies regarding the Foundation's governance.

Kind regards,
Marc Vloemans


> Op 25 okt. 2017 om 20:00 heeft Vasile Craciunescu  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Dear Board directors and dear members of OSGeo community,
> 
> This year elections [1] will end in less than 7 hours and it is time for me, 
> as CRO, to make a short assessment and to issue a few recommendations.
> 
> As you all know, during the process we had a few situations that caused 
> tension and discontent to an important number of our members. I will go 
> through the most important ones.
> 
> 1. This year membership process [2] was a very lite one. The basic rule for 
> becoming a charter member was to be nominated by one existing member and to 
> be seconded by at least one other existing member. This lite approach was in 
> line with the new OSGeo Vision and Mission Statement which is focused on 
> being inclusive [3]. However, during the nomination period, many of our 
> members considered the new membership process way too inclusive/lite, causing 
> a diminution in the importance of the charter member position. Another 
> subject that produced criticism was related to the fact that some of the 
> nominations were considered short in content and did not offer enough 
> information on the "positive attributes" [4] that a potential member shall 
> have. Finally, one of the charter member responsibilities [5], "Be aware of 
> and protect against a takeover of OSGeo by single group or viewpoint.", was 
> also a subject of dispute. My recommendations for the future board are to: 
> (a) Change the existing membership process with another one more balanced, 
> that assures both inclusiveness and a consistent weight for the charter 
> member position. Of course, this new mechanism should be discussed with the 
> community; (b) Impose a a very light template for the new nominations. This 
> way, all the nominations will be consistent and comparable. (c) Rephrase 
> responsibility no. 3 of the charter members. The meaning should be kept bu 
> the wording should not sound that martial.
> 
> 2. Jeff was nominated for the board of directors while was serving as co-CRO. 
> Even if the nominee steeped down immediately from the co-CRO position, the 
> access to the c...@osgeo.org was immediately cut-off and he never had access 
> to the electronic voting system, criticism over the potential conflict of 
> interest and elections credibility was raised. My recommendation for the 
> board is to make a specific rule that a nomination/candidacy for/from a 
> person that is acting as CRO or has any other role in the election management 
> is not acceptable.
> 
> 3. During the voting period Jeff sent a request to withdraw from the 
> elections due to the negative feedback. This also started a vivid debate. My 
> recommendation for the board is to create a clear rule stating that an 
> accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start of the voting period. 
> Of course, elected persons can always resign for various reasons.
> 
> Regarding the current status of the elections. 311 from a total of 390 
> members voted (80%). Due to the final reminder sent today there are chances 
> to improve the voting participation.
> 
> In my previous message I was proposing to accept Jeff's withdraw request but 
> to continue the elections without any modification to the voting list. After 
> more study on different voting systems and after going through your feedback, 
> my decision and proposal for the board is not to admit the request from Jeff. 
> Such requests are not possible in this kind of elections elsewhere. It is 
> true that we have no specific rule for that in our bylaws. As I mentioned 
> before, this should change. After the release of the elections results, and 
> if Jeff is elected, it's up to him to decide if he goes on with the mandate 
> or if he is resigning. This decision should be a very fast one, without 
> further discussions on the mailing list, with all the possible arguments 
> being already on the table.
> 
> The other option that the board can consider is to entirely restart the board 
> elections cycle (or only the voting part for the remaining 8 nominations). 
> Even if this looks like the most correct way to go, looking on how the 
> elections went before and after Jeff announcement, I can say, without 
> disclosing anything about the final results, that the announcement did not 
> changed the way people were voting. Of course, this is not a fact, is just my 
> conclusion after looking at the trends. After the elections, beside the final 
> numbers, I will also publish the evolution of the votes (every single vote 
> and the timestamp, anonymized of course). Other important reasons for the 
> 

[OSGeo-Discuss] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of view

[Helmut Kudrnovsky]

[forwarding it to OSGeo discuss] 

Vasile,

thanks a lot for your hard work as CRO and considerations to keep the 
_community_ in balance!

Kind regards
Helmut

OSGeo charter member

>Dear Board directors and dear members of OSGeo community,
>
>This year elections [1] will end in less than 7 hours and it is time for
>me, as CRO, to make a short assessment and to issue a few recommendations.
>
>As you all know, during the process we had a few situations that caused
>tension and discontent to an important number of our members. I will go
>through the most important ones.
>
>1. This year membership process [2] was a very lite one. The basic rule
>for becoming a charter member was to be nominated by one existing member
>and to be seconded by at least one other existing member. This lite
>approach was in line with the new OSGeo Vision and Mission Statement
>which is focused on being inclusive [3]. However, during the nomination
>period, many of our members considered the new membership process way
>too inclusive/lite, causing a diminution in the importance of the
>charter member position. Another subject that produced criticism was
>related to the fact that some of the nominations were considered short
>in content and did not offer enough information on the "positive
>attributes" [4] that a potential member shall have. Finally, one of the
>charter member responsibilities [5], "Be aware of and protect against a
>takeover of OSGeo by single group or viewpoint.", was also a subject of
>dispute. My recommendations for the future board are to: (a) Change the
>existing membership process with another one more balanced, that assures
>both inclusiveness and a consistent weight for the charter member
>position. Of course, this new mechanism should be discussed with the
>community; (b) Impose a a very light template for the new nominations.
>This way, all the nominations will be consistent and comparable. (c)
>Rephrase responsibility no. 3 of the charter members. The meaning should
>be kept bu the wording should not sound that martial.
>
>2. Jeff was nominated for the board of directors while was serving as
>co-CRO. Even if the nominee steeped down immediately from the co-CRO
>position, the access to the cro at osgeo.org was immediately cut-off and he
>never had access to the electronic voting system, criticism over the
>potential conflict of interest and elections credibility was raised. My
>recommendation for the board is to make a specific rule that a
>nomination/candidacy for/from a person that is acting as CRO or has any
>other role in the election management is not acceptable.
>
>3. During the voting period Jeff sent a request to withdraw from the
>elections due to the negative feedback. This also started a vivid
>debate. My recommendation for the board is to create a clear rule
>stating that an accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start
>of the voting period. Of course, elected persons can always resign for
>various reasons.
>
>Regarding the current status of the elections. 311 from a total of 390
>members voted (80%). Due to the final reminder sent today there are
>chances to improve the voting participation.
>
>In my previous message I was proposing to accept Jeff's withdraw request
>but to continue the elections without any modification to the voting
>list. After more study on different voting systems and after going
>through your feedback, my decision and proposal for the board is not to
>admit the request from Jeff. Such requests are not possible in this kind
>of elections elsewhere. It is true that we have no specific rule for
>that in our bylaws. As I mentioned before, this should change. After the
>release of the elections results, and if Jeff is elected, it's up to him
>to decide if he goes on with the mandate or if he is resigning. This
>decision should be a very fast one, without further discussions on the
>mailing list, with all the possible arguments being already on the table.
>
>The other option that the board can consider is to entirely restart the
>board elections cycle (or only the voting part for the remaining 8
>nominations). Even if this looks like the most correct way to go,
>looking on how the elections went before and after Jeff announcement, I
>can say, without disclosing anything about the final results, that the
>announcement did not changed the way people were voting. Of course, this
>is not a fact, is just my conclusion after looking at the trends. After
>the elections, beside the final numbers, I will also publish the
>evolution of the votes (every single vote and the timestamp, anonymized
>of course). Other important reasons for the board not to start new
>elections are: (a) The community is very irritated about this never
>ending stories and people are waiting to move forward and do the things
>we usually do. For most of them, the arguments for restarting the
>elections are not strong enough; (b) Four of our current board members
>are also running in this elections. 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of view

[Jody Garnett]

Thank you for your dedication in fulfilling this role, extensive summary,
and patience through an unexpectedly turbulent election processes.

I am not sure I have collected my own thoughts, in the interests of meeting
your request I would like to ask if the current board members are available
for 14:00 UTC tomorrow.


On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:00 PM SERGIO ACOSTAYLARA <
sergio.acostayl...@mtop.gub.uy> wrote:

> Very well said. We need more people like you. You have my full support.
> 
>
> Sergio Acosta y Lara
> Departamento de Geomática
> Dirección Nacional de Topografía
> Ministerio de Transporte y Obras Públicas
> URUGUAY
> (598)29157933 ints. 20329/20330
> http://geoportal.mtop.gub.uy/
>
> 
> De: Discuss [discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] en nombre de Marc Vloemans [
> marcvloema...@gmail.com]
> Enviado: miércoles, 25 de octubre de 2017 15:21
> Para: Vasile Craciunescu
> Cc: OSGeo Discussions; osgeo-board List
> Asunto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of
>   view
>
> Thanks Vasile,
>
> You managed to cut down to the things that really mattered and that we can
> all learn from.
> Impressive clear and comprehensive summary. I hope his advice will be
> weighed and incorporated into future policies regarding the Foundation's
> governance.
>
> Kind regards,
> Marc Vloemans
>
>
> > Op 25 okt. 2017 om 20:00 heeft Vasile Craciunescu <
> vas...@geo-spatial.org> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > Dear Board directors and dear members of OSGeo community,
> >
> > This year elections [1] will end in less than 7 hours and it is time for
> me, as CRO, to make a short assessment and to issue a few recommendations.
> >
> > As you all know, during the process we had a few situations that caused
> tension and discontent to an important number of our members. I will go
> through the most important ones.
> >
> > 1. This year membership process [2] was a very lite one. The basic rule
> for becoming a charter member was to be nominated by one existing member
> and to be seconded by at least one other existing member. This lite
> approach was in line with the new OSGeo Vision and Mission Statement which
> is focused on being inclusive [3]. However, during the nomination period,
> many of our members considered the new membership process way too
> inclusive/lite, causing a diminution in the importance of the charter
> member position. Another subject that produced criticism was related to the
> fact that some of the nominations were considered short in content and did
> not offer enough information on the "positive attributes" [4] that a
> potential member shall have. Finally, one of the charter member
> responsibilities [5], "Be aware of and protect against a takeover of OSGeo
> by single group or viewpoint.", was also a subject of dispute. My
> recommendations for the future board are to: (a) Change the existing
> membership process with another one more balanced, that assures both
> inclusiveness and a consistent weight for the charter member position. Of
> course, this new mechanism should be discussed with the community; (b)
> Impose a a very light template for the new nominations. This way, all the
> nominations will be consistent and comparable. (c) Rephrase responsibility
> no. 3 of the charter members. The meaning should be kept bu the wording
> should not sound that martial.
> >
> > 2. Jeff was nominated for the board of directors while was serving as
> co-CRO. Even if the nominee steeped down immediately from the co-CRO
> position, the access to the c...@osgeo.org was immediately cut-off and he
> never had access to the electronic voting system, criticism over the
> potential conflict of interest and elections credibility was raised. My
> recommendation for the board is to make a specific rule that a
> nomination/candidacy for/from a person that is acting as CRO or has any
> other role in the election management is not acceptable.
> >
> > 3. During the voting period Jeff sent a request to withdraw from the
> elections due to the negative feedback. This also started a vivid debate.
> My recommendation for the board is to create a clear rule stating that an
> accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start of the voting
> period. Of course, elected persons can always resign for various reasons.
> >
> > Regarding the current status of the elections. 311 from a total of 390
> members voted (80%). Due to the final reminder sent today there are chances
> to improve the voting participation.
> >
> > In my previous message I was proposing to accept Jeff's withdraw request
> but to continue the elections without any modification to the voting list.
> After more study on different voting systems and after going through your
> feedback, my decision and proposal for the board is not to admit the
> request from Jeff. Such requests are not possible in this kind of elections
> elsewhere. It is true that we have no specific rule for that in our bylaws.

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of view

[SERGIO ACOSTAYLARA]

Very well said. We need more people like you. You have my full support. 

Sergio Acosta y Lara
Departamento de Geomática
Dirección Nacional de Topografía
Ministerio de Transporte y Obras Públicas
URUGUAY
(598)29157933 ints. 20329/20330
http://geoportal.mtop.gub.uy/


De: Discuss [discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] en nombre de Marc Vloemans 
[marcvloema...@gmail.com]
Enviado: miércoles, 25 de octubre de 2017 15:21
Para: Vasile Craciunescu
Cc: OSGeo Discussions; osgeo-board List
Asunto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of
view

Thanks Vasile,

You managed to cut down to the things that really mattered and that we can all 
learn from.
Impressive clear and comprehensive summary. I hope his advice will be weighed 
and incorporated into future policies regarding the Foundation's governance.

Kind regards,
Marc Vloemans


> Op 25 okt. 2017 om 20:00 heeft Vasile Craciunescu  
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Dear Board directors and dear members of OSGeo community,
>
> This year elections [1] will end in less than 7 hours and it is time for me, 
> as CRO, to make a short assessment and to issue a few recommendations.
>
> As you all know, during the process we had a few situations that caused 
> tension and discontent to an important number of our members. I will go 
> through the most important ones.
>
> 1. This year membership process [2] was a very lite one. The basic rule for 
> becoming a charter member was to be nominated by one existing member and to 
> be seconded by at least one other existing member. This lite approach was in 
> line with the new OSGeo Vision and Mission Statement which is focused on 
> being inclusive [3]. However, during the nomination period, many of our 
> members considered the new membership process way too inclusive/lite, causing 
> a diminution in the importance of the charter member position. Another 
> subject that produced criticism was related to the fact that some of the 
> nominations were considered short in content and did not offer enough 
> information on the "positive attributes" [4] that a potential member shall 
> have. Finally, one of the charter member responsibilities [5], "Be aware of 
> and protect against a takeover of OSGeo by single group or viewpoint.", was 
> also a subject of dispute. My recommendations for the future board are to: 
> (a) Change the existing membership process with another one more balanced, 
> that assures both inclusiveness and a consistent weight for the charter 
> member position. Of course, this new mechanism should be discussed with the 
> community; (b) Impose a a very light template for the new nominations. This 
> way, all the nominations will be consistent and comparable. (c) Rephrase 
> responsibility no. 3 of the charter members. The meaning should be kept bu 
> the wording should not sound that martial.
>
> 2. Jeff was nominated for the board of directors while was serving as co-CRO. 
> Even if the nominee steeped down immediately from the co-CRO position, the 
> access to the c...@osgeo.org was immediately cut-off and he never had access 
> to the electronic voting system, criticism over the potential conflict of 
> interest and elections credibility was raised. My recommendation for the 
> board is to make a specific rule that a nomination/candidacy for/from a 
> person that is acting as CRO or has any other role in the election management 
> is not acceptable.
>
> 3. During the voting period Jeff sent a request to withdraw from the 
> elections due to the negative feedback. This also started a vivid debate. My 
> recommendation for the board is to create a clear rule stating that an 
> accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start of the voting period. 
> Of course, elected persons can always resign for various reasons.
>
> Regarding the current status of the elections. 311 from a total of 390 
> members voted (80%). Due to the final reminder sent today there are chances 
> to improve the voting participation.
>
> In my previous message I was proposing to accept Jeff's withdraw request but 
> to continue the elections without any modification to the voting list. After 
> more study on different voting systems and after going through your feedback, 
> my decision and proposal for the board is not to admit the request from Jeff. 
> Such requests are not possible in this kind of elections elsewhere. It is 
> true that we have no specific rule for that in our bylaws. As I mentioned 
> before, this should change. After the release of the elections results, and 
> if Jeff is elected, it's up to him to decide if he goes on with the mandate 
> or if he is resigning. This decision should be a very fast one, without 
> further discussions on the mailing list, with all the possible arguments 
> being already on the table.
>
> The other option that the board can consider is to entirely restart the board 
> elections cycle (or 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of view

[Anita Graser]

Thank you for your summary and assessment of the situation, Vasile!

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Jody Garnett 
wrote:
>
> I am not sure I have collected my own thoughts, in the interests of
> meeting your request I would like to ask if the current board members are
> available for 14:00 UTC tomorrow.
>

​I can't guarantee that I'll be able to make it, but here are my thoughts:

1) +1 Vasile's recommendation "to create a clear rule stating that an
accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start of the voting
period", and therefore

2) +1 the recommendation "not to admit the [withdrawal] request from Jef"

3) +1 "not to start new elections" for the reasons summarized by Vasile

Thanks again Vasile for taking care of the process! I hope we will find
someone as dedicated for future elections.

Regards,
Anita



​
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of view

[Helena Mitasova]

unfortunately it looks like I won't be able to make tomorrow, although I
will try to connect.

I mostly agree with Michael and I don't think we should repeat the election
for the many reasons that CRO has highlighted.
The rules for the next election will need to be revised and updated by the
new board in response to CRO comments and suggestions.

Helena

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Michael Smith  wrote:

> I should be able to make it tomorrow but I will publish my thoughts here.
>
> 1) while we have had something more involved in previous years, the end
> result was the same. I’d really hate to change the process again so quickly
> although I do like the template idea. Maybe via form on the wiki or
> something. But if people really don’t like the new process I’m not that
> against changing it but if we do change it, imho it needs to be done right
> after the election and not close to next years process.
>
> 2) I still feel that nothing bad was followed here. I think recusal from
> CRO after nomination is reasonable as long as it’s before voting or setup
> etc.
>
> 3) since these are all voluntary positions, I feel that any one should be
> able to withdraw if that’s what they feel is necessary. We don’t know what
> all went into the decision but I believe that anyone nominated would act in
> a heartfelt and considered manner. If Jeff felt the need to withdraw, I
> think we need to respect that, even if during the election. The end result
> is the same as if he withdraws after, except that some people had more info
> to make a decision.  This could happen to anyone if their circumstances
> changes. It’s something I think we have to allow for as real life can
> interfere with our best intentions.
>
>
> Finally I agree with the decision to not redo the election. If there was
> something that interferes with integrity of the election, then there would
> be cause but these are just, frankly, almost to be expected issues. We are
> just fortunate that we haven’t been as affected by these in previous years.
>
>
> Michael Smith
> OSGeo Treasurer
>
> > On Oct 25, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Vasile Craciunescu 
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Board directors and dear members of OSGeo community,
> >
> > This year elections [1] will end in less than 7 hours and it is time for
> me, as CRO, to make a short assessment and to issue a few recommendations.
> >
> > As you all know, during the process we had a few situations that caused
> tension and discontent to an important number of our members. I will go
> through the most important ones.
> >
> > 1. This year membership process [2] was a very lite one. The basic rule
> for becoming a charter member was to be nominated by one existing member
> and to be seconded by at least one other existing member. This lite
> approach was in line with the new OSGeo Vision and Mission Statement which
> is focused on being inclusive [3]. However, during the nomination period,
> many of our members considered the new membership process way too
> inclusive/lite, causing a diminution in the importance of the charter
> member position. Another subject that produced criticism was related to the
> fact that some of the nominations were considered short in content and did
> not offer enough information on the "positive attributes" [4] that a
> potential member shall have. Finally, one of the charter member
> responsibilities [5], "Be aware of and protect against a takeover of OSGeo
> by single group or viewpoint.", was also a subject of dispute. My
> recommendations for the future board are to: (a) Change the existing
> membership process with another one more balanced, that assures both
> inclusiveness and a consistent weight for the charter member position. Of
> course, this new mechanism should be discussed with the community; (b)
> Impose a a very light template for the new nominations. This way, all the
> nominations will be consistent and comparable. (c) Rephrase responsibility
> no. 3 of the charter members. The meaning should be kept bu the wording
> should not sound that martial.
> >
> > 2. Jeff was nominated for the board of directors while was serving as
> co-CRO. Even if the nominee steeped down immediately from the co-CRO
> position, the access to the c...@osgeo.org was immediately cut-off and he
> never had access to the electronic voting system, criticism over the
> potential conflict of interest and elections credibility was raised. My
> recommendation for the board is to make a specific rule that a
> nomination/candidacy for/from a person that is acting as CRO or has any
> other role in the election management is not acceptable.
> >
> > 3. During the voting period Jeff sent a request to withdraw from the
> elections due to the negative feedback. This also started a vivid debate.
> My recommendation for the board is to create a clear rule stating that an
> accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start of the voting
> period. Of 

[OSGeo-Discuss] website feedback survey

[Jody Garnett]

Thanks to everyone who participated in the foss4g sprint! The sprint was
successful in creating content for the beta website.

Our vendor, Get Interactive, has completed fixing issues reported. Their
final task is producing a report based on community review and feedback.

Please help:

1) Try out the beta website http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl

2) Fill out the provided survey, it will take about 5 minutes:
http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/site-survey/

Thanks,
Marketing Committee
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Elections deadline extension by 24h

[Maria Antonia Brovelli]

Thanks Vasile!


Maria


Pay attention to this Special Issue and see if it is of interest by you:

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijgi/special_issues/Geospatial_Big_Data_Urban_Studies




Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Professor of GIS and Remote Sensing
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4 "Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)" 
http://www2.isprs.org/commissions/comm4/wg4.html, Board of Directors of OSGeo; 
GeoForAll Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET Advisory Board

UN-GGIM Academic Network Deputy Chair, UN-GGIM Italy, UN OpenGIS Initiative 
(Chair of the Capacity Building WG)

Sol Katz Award 2015

P.zza Leonardo da Vinci, 32 - Building 3 - 20133 Milano (Italy)
Tel. +39-02-23996242 - Mob. +39-328-0023867,   
maria.brove...@polimi.it








Da: Discuss  per conto di SERGIO ACOSTAYLARA 

Inviato: martedì 24 ottobre 2017 17:34
A: Vasile Craciunescu; OSGeo Discussions
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Elections deadline extension by 24h

Big thanks to you Vasile! (I don't envy you... :-))

Sergio Acosta y Lara
Departamento de Geomática
Dirección Nacional de Topografía
Ministerio de Transporte y Obras Públicas
URUGUAY
(598)29157933 ints. 20329/20330
http://geoportal.mtop.gub.uy/


De: Discuss  en nombre de Vasile Craciunescu 

Enviado: martes, 24 de octubre de 2017 12:31
Para: OSGeo Discussions
Asunto: [OSGeo-Discuss] Elections deadline extension by 24h

Dear all,

I was just notified by one of our charter members (thank you, Jody!)
about a mistake in the vote invitation email. The email contains this
phrase "The deadline for this election is 23:59 GMT Tuesday 25th October
2017". Of course, Tuesday is today and today is the deadline according
with our official calendar. However, just to make sure no one is mislead
by this phrasing, I will extend the voting period with 24 hours. Is my
mistake and I would like to apologize for this as is adding more
problems an an already complicated situation. Hopefully, more members
will have the chance to vote. Until now, 277 from the total of 390
charter members voted. Later tonight I will also publicly sent my
position to the board on the situation caused by Jeff's request to
withdraw from elections.

Thank you for your patience!

Best,
Vasile
CRO 2017
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss