Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Geographic Diversity
P Kishor wrote: Hi all, I would love hear from others about what they think of geography-based Board seats. Please weigh in. Puneet, I'm coming to this late. It is my opinion that hard coding specific numbers of board seats from specific geographic locales is not a great idea for some of the reasons already mentioned. However, I strongly encourage voters to treat geographic, gender, project and other forms of desirable diversity as a criteria when voting for charter members and board members. I think Tyler's point that being on the board is not necessary for meaningful involvement is important. Also, I think it is clear from this thread that it is important that the board, regardless of composition, acts to support our goals for foss4g use all around the world. I've yet to return to some of the interesting email since I went away on the challenges in the developing world (though many of them - at a glance - seems similar to the challenges we face in the developed world). Best regards, -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [EMAIL PROTECTED] light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush| President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Geographic Diversity
P Kishor wrote: I believe pegging Board-membership to geography is a good thing I also believe that while one can contribute as much while being an ordinary member as opposed to a charter or a Board member (I became a charter member only a couple of months ago), Board membership could be an important label to find local support. After all, if there were no difference then why even have these different labels? When one is going around drumming up support, having a position carries a heft. Perhaps there is some resistance to artificially creating a geographically diverse Board, but who say that is the only option? There could be OSGeo Regional Representatives, who are elected, and who, by definition, represent specific geographic regions, without those people necessarily also being board members. They could have an advisory role to the Board. -- Dave Patton Degree Confluence Project: Canadian Coordinator Technical Coordinator http://www.confluence.org/ FOSS4G2007: Workshop Committee Conference Committee http://www.foss4g2007.org/ Personal website: Maps, GPS, etc. http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Geographic Diversity
On 8/17/07, Dave Patton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P Kishor wrote: I believe pegging Board-membership to geography is a good thing I also believe that while one can contribute as much while being an ordinary member as opposed to a charter or a Board member (I became a charter member only a couple of months ago), Board membership could be an important label to find local support. After all, if there were no difference then why even have these different labels? When one is going around drumming up support, having a position carries a heft. Perhaps there is some resistance to artificially creating a geographically diverse Board, but who say that is the only option? There could be OSGeo Regional Representatives, who are elected, and who, by definition, represent specific geographic regions, without those people necessarily also being board members. They could have an advisory role to the Board. a rose by any other name... should work well as far as I am concerned. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Geographic Diversity
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 20:54 -0700, Dave Patton wrote: P Kishor wrote: I believe pegging Board-membership to geography is a good thing I also believe that while one can contribute as much while being an ordinary member as opposed to a charter or a Board member (I became a charter member only a couple of months ago), Board membership could be an important label to find local support. After all, if there were no difference then why even have these different labels? When one is going around drumming up support, having a position carries a heft. Perhaps there is some resistance to artificially creating a geographically diverse Board, but who say that is the only option? There could be OSGeo Regional Representatives, who are elected, and who, by definition, represent specific geographic regions, without those people necessarily also being board members. They could have an advisory role to the Board. Just to add my own $0.02, Like so many others I am firmly of the opinion that designated regional seats on the board is a /really bad idea/. If there is strong regional grassroots activity, then board makeup will over time will reflect this. IMHO Dave's suggestion has some serious merit, with a slight change; If we have healthy local chapters, I don't see why the chapter chairs (or whatever they are called) can't fill this role. They're presumably selected in a manner acceptable to those they represent, probably reasonably active and would be a good fit as regional reps. I'm not sure how formal we should make it, but it makes sense to me as a functional solution. Regards, Tim Bowden ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
