Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Martin Tomko]

Excellent, and thank you for shepherding this John.
Threads are a pain - I work with digests, and never know what to leave in the 
subject (
M.

On 15/10/19, 6:01 am, "Oceania on behalf of oceania-requ...@lists.osgeo.org" 
 
wrote:

Send Oceania mailing list submissions to
oceania@lists.osgeo.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
oceania-requ...@lists.osgeo.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
oceania-ow...@lists.osgeo.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Oceania digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: membership - elections - AGM (Alex Leith)
   2. Re: membership - elections - AGM (Edoardo Neerhut)
   3. Re: membership - elections - AGM (John Bryant)


--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:04:21 +1100
From: Alex Leith 
To: Greg Lauer 
Cc: Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

+1

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 01:21, Greg Lauer  wrote:

> + 1
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:50 PM Daniel Silk  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> I like where we've landed on the membership policy - thanks to all those
>> that provided input and to John for forming that into a cohesive policy 
we
>> can move forward with. :-)
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jonah Sullivan 

>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 15:39 John Bryant,  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks everyone, lots of energetic input over the last several weeks! I
>>>> hope it's resulted in a good outcome that works for this community. At 
the
>>>> end of the day, we're just finding ways to express how we work 
together,
>>>> which we already do well. Time will tell, and we can always adjust 
what's
>>>> not working.
>>>>
>>>> So, OSGeo Oceania board, over to you. The motion is: *We ratify and
>>>> adopt the attached draft membership policy.*
>>>>
>>>> Your earliest response would be great, ideally in the next day or 2.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> John
>>>> ___
>>>> Oceania mailing list
>>>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>>
>>> ___
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>> ___
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
    >
    

-- 
    Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20191014/4c11ef67/attachment-0001.html>

--

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:08:23 +1100
From: Edoardo Neerhut 
To: Alex Leith 
Cc: Greg Lauer , Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

+1

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 10:04, Alex Leith  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 01:21, Greg Lauer  wrote:
>
>> + 1
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:50 PM Daniel Silk  wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I like where we've landed on the membership policy - thanks to all those
>>> that provided input and to John for forming that into a cohesive policy 
we
>>> can move forward with. :-)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jonah Sullivan <
>>> jonahsulliva...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

With 7 directors voting in favour (Martin's in a separate digest thread)
and none against, I think we can call this done. I'll link a finalised PDF
version from the wiki page now.

Thanks all!
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Edoardo Neerhut]

+1

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 10:04, Alex Leith  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 01:21, Greg Lauer  wrote:
>
>> + 1
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:50 PM Daniel Silk  wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I like where we've landed on the membership policy - thanks to all those
>>> that provided input and to John for forming that into a cohesive policy we
>>> can move forward with. :-)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jonah Sullivan <
>>> jonahsulliva...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 +1

 On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 15:39 John Bryant,  wrote:

> Thanks everyone, lots of energetic input over the last several weeks!
> I hope it's resulted in a good outcome that works for this community. At
> the end of the day, we're just finding ways to express how we work
> together, which we already do well. Time will tell, and we can always
> adjust what's not working.
>
> So, OSGeo Oceania board, over to you. The motion is: *We ratify and
> adopt the attached draft membership policy.*
>
> Your earliest response would be great, ideally in the next day or 2.
>
> Thanks!
> John
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
 ___
 Oceania mailing list
 Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
 https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

>>> ___
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>> ___
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
>
>
> --
> Alex Leith
> m: 0419189050
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Alex Leith]

+1

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 01:21, Greg Lauer  wrote:

> + 1
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:50 PM Daniel Silk  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> I like where we've landed on the membership policy - thanks to all those
>> that provided input and to John for forming that into a cohesive policy we
>> can move forward with. :-)
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jonah Sullivan 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 15:39 John Bryant,  wrote:
>>>
 Thanks everyone, lots of energetic input over the last several weeks! I
 hope it's resulted in a good outcome that works for this community. At the
 end of the day, we're just finding ways to express how we work together,
 which we already do well. Time will tell, and we can always adjust what's
 not working.

 So, OSGeo Oceania board, over to you. The motion is: *We ratify and
 adopt the attached draft membership policy.*

 Your earliest response would be great, ideally in the next day or 2.

 Thanks!
 John
 ___
 Oceania mailing list
 Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
 https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

>>> ___
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>> ___
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>


-- 
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Greg Lauer]

+ 1

On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:50 PM Daniel Silk  wrote:

> +1
>
> I like where we've landed on the membership policy - thanks to all those
> that provided input and to John for forming that into a cohesive policy we
> can move forward with. :-)
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jonah Sullivan 
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 15:39 John Bryant,  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks everyone, lots of energetic input over the last several weeks! I
>>> hope it's resulted in a good outcome that works for this community. At the
>>> end of the day, we're just finding ways to express how we work together,
>>> which we already do well. Time will tell, and we can always adjust what's
>>> not working.
>>>
>>> So, OSGeo Oceania board, over to you. The motion is: *We ratify and
>>> adopt the attached draft membership policy.*
>>>
>>> Your earliest response would be great, ideally in the next day or 2.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> John
>>> ___
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>> ___
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Daniel Silk]

+1

I like where we've landed on the membership policy - thanks to all those
that provided input and to John for forming that into a cohesive policy we
can move forward with. :-)

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jonah Sullivan 
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 15:39 John Bryant,  wrote:
>
>> Thanks everyone, lots of energetic input over the last several weeks! I
>> hope it's resulted in a good outcome that works for this community. At the
>> end of the day, we're just finding ways to express how we work together,
>> which we already do well. Time will tell, and we can always adjust what's
>> not working.
>>
>> So, OSGeo Oceania board, over to you. The motion is: *We ratify and
>> adopt the attached draft membership policy.*
>>
>> Your earliest response would be great, ideally in the next day or 2.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> John
>> ___
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[adam steer]

Hi Kerry

Like John I see it as just another avenue.. it's there if needed, and some
people do need to be invited.

Regards,

Adam

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 15:31 John Bryant,  wrote:

> OK, point taken. I don't see any harm in having the option for people to
> nominate others they see contributing, some people people may be modest and
> not nominate themselves. I am working on a list of people I will nominate
> once we kick off a membership drive. In any case, I think it would have
> been better to make this point earlier.
>
> I would like to let the motion stand, and let the board vote on it... but
> if anyone sees these new comments as a reason to cancel the motion and have
> further discussion, please chime in.
>
> Thanks
> John
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Kerry Smyth]

Hi John, Adam,

I’m not speaking against the opening up to all. 

I’m just saying if you can self-nominate, then nomination by someone else seems 
superfluous red tape.

If I want to join then I apply.

Why would someone else want to nominate me and then the Membership Working 
Group have to confirm that I want to be nominated?

I don’t get the purpose of the third party involvement.

 

Kerry Smyth

 

From: Oceania  On Behalf Of adam steer
Sent: Friday, 11 October 2019 10:34 AM
To: John Bryant 
Cc: Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

 

Hi John, Kerry

 

this model of ‘anyone can sign up’ also fits the broader OSMF and OSGeo models. 
In OSMF you just pay, in OSGeo you go to a website and create yourself an 
account.

 

Thanks everyone for their hard work on this document, I think it is a wonderful 
result from a series of well considered compromises and thoughtful, 
experience-based input.

 

Regards

 

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 10:21, John Bryant mailto:johnwbry...@gmail.com> > wrote:

>From Kerry: 

COMMENT: If anyone can nominate new members - can you self-nominate?  In which 
case isn't this an application for membership? Is the intention that the 
nominator is already a member, because this is not specified.

It does seem odd that anybody in the whole world can nominate another person 
for membership.

 

Thanks Kerry. This was intentionally introduced on 27 Sep when we attempted to 
resolve some disagreement by consolidating two membership tiers into a single 
tier. Since one key idea is to keep a low barrier to entry, while still 
maintaining some control over the membership process, this was changed from 
"any member may nominate..." to "anybody can nominate..." so that we're 
avoiding an "inner circle" situation.

 

I don't think it's especially odd that anybody in the whole world can nominate 
(including self-nomination). If someone meets our eligibility criteria, and 
wishes to become a member, then we should welcome them as members regardless of 
who they know.

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Oceania@lists.osgeo.org> 
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania




 

-- 

Dr. Adam Steer

http://spatialised.net

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer

http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

 

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

OK, point taken. I don't see any harm in having the option for people to
nominate others they see contributing, some people people may be modest and
not nominate themselves. I am working on a list of people I will nominate
once we kick off a membership drive. In any case, I think it would have
been better to make this point earlier.

I would like to let the motion stand, and let the board vote on it... but
if anyone sees these new comments as a reason to cancel the motion and have
further discussion, please chime in.

Thanks
John
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Jonah Sullivan]

+1

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 15:39 John Bryant,  wrote:

> Thanks everyone, lots of energetic input over the last several weeks! I
> hope it's resulted in a good outcome that works for this community. At the
> end of the day, we're just finding ways to express how we work together,
> which we already do well. Time will tell, and we can always adjust what's
> not working.
>
> So, OSGeo Oceania board, over to you. The motion is: *We ratify and adopt
> the attached draft membership policy.*
>
> Your earliest response would be great, ideally in the next day or 2.
>
> Thanks!
> John
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Thanks everyone, lots of energetic input over the last several weeks! I
hope it's resulted in a good outcome that works for this community. At the
end of the day, we're just finding ways to express how we work together,
which we already do well. Time will tell, and we can always adjust what's
not working.

So, OSGeo Oceania board, over to you. The motion is: *We ratify and adopt
the attached draft membership policy.*

Your earliest response would be great, ideally in the next day or 2.

Thanks!
John


Membership policy - DRAFT.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[adam steer]

Hi John, Kerry

this model of ‘anyone can sign up’ also fits the broader OSMF and OSGeo
models. In OSMF you just pay, in OSGeo you go to a website and create
yourself an account.

Thanks everyone for their hard work on this document, I think it is a
wonderful result from a series of well considered compromises and
thoughtful, experience-based input.

Regards

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 10:21, John Bryant  wrote:

> From Kerry:
>
>> *COMMENT: If anyone can nominate new members - can you self-nominate?  In
>> which case isn't this an application for membership? Is the intention that
>> the nominator is already a member, because this is not specified.*
>>
>> *It does seem odd that anybody in the whole world can nominate another
>> person for membership.*
>>
>
> Thanks Kerry. This was intentionally introduced on 27 Sep when we
> attempted to resolve some disagreement by consolidating two membership
> tiers into a single tier. Since one key idea is to keep a low barrier to
> entry, while still maintaining some control over the membership process,
> this was changed from "*any member may nominate...*" to "*anybody can
> nominate...*" so that we're avoiding an "inner circle" situation.
>
> I don't think it's especially odd that anybody in the whole world can
> nominate (including self-nomination). If someone meets our eligibility
> criteria, and wishes to become a member, then we should welcome them as
> members regardless of who they know.
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>


-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

>From Kerry:

> *COMMENT: If anyone can nominate new members - can you self-nominate?  In
> which case isn't this an application for membership? Is the intention that
> the nominator is already a member, because this is not specified.*
>
> *It does seem odd that anybody in the whole world can nominate another
> person for membership.*
>

Thanks Kerry. This was intentionally introduced on 27 Sep when we attempted
to resolve some disagreement by consolidating two membership tiers into a
single tier. Since one key idea is to keep a low barrier to entry, while
still maintaining some control over the membership process, this was
changed from "*any member may nominate...*" to "*anybody can nominate...*"
so that we're avoiding an "inner circle" situation.

I don't think it's especially odd that anybody in the whole world can
nominate (including self-nomination). If someone meets our eligibility
criteria, and wishes to become a member, then we should welcome them as
members regardless of who they know.
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[adam steer]

Thanks John, all good here. +1

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 12:27, John Bryant  wrote:

> Thanks Adam, good points. Have responded in comments.
>
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 19:58, adam steer  wrote:
>
>> Thanks John, the document is looking good and shiny. Just a couple of
>> comments on the MWG workload and timing, no objections to anything.
>>
>> Well done!
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 18:21, John Bryant  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> The board has gone over the details, taken some professional advice, and
>>> prepared another draft of the membership policy. I hope at this point it
>>> reads well, clearly expresses intent, is workable, and is acceptable to the
>>> community.
>>>
>>> I'd like to put this forward for a few days of community review. Please
>>> respond with comments and questions, and I'll ask the board to help me in
>>> responding. Please bear in mind the considerable discussion that has
>>> already happened... the policy contains some compromise positions, I
>>> suggest we don't re-open those discussions as it may cause delay without
>>> any material benefit. Let's all stay positive and remember we're at the
>>> beginning and this can evolve over time...
>>>
>>> Draft is here [1]. I think we should aim to proceed with a motion to
>>> adopt around the end of the week.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> John
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:43, John Bryant  wrote:
>>>
 Thanks all for compromising, good teamwork spirit. These long email
 discussions can be fatiguing, so I appreciate your patience. I'll take all
 this feedback and input, and pull together a next draft. Hopefully we're
 just about there.

 Cheers
 John

>>> ___
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Adam Steer
>> http://spatialised.net
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
>> http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
>> http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
>> +61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer
>>
>> Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
>>
>

-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Bruce Bannerman]

OK by me.

Well done.

Bruce

> On 7 Oct 2019, at 21:20, John Bryant  wrote:
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> The board has gone over the details, taken some professional advice, and 
> prepared another draft of the membership policy. I hope at this point it 
> reads well, clearly expresses intent, is workable, and is acceptable to the 
> community.
> 
> I'd like to put this forward for a few days of community review. Please 
> respond with comments and questions, and I'll ask the board to help me in 
> responding. Please bear in mind the considerable discussion that has already 
> happened... the policy contains some compromise positions, I suggest we don't 
> re-open those discussions as it may cause delay without any material benefit. 
> Let's all stay positive and remember we're at the beginning and this can 
> evolve over time...
> 
> Draft is here [1]. I think we should aim to proceed with a motion to adopt 
> around the end of the week.
> 
> Cheers!
> John
> 
> [1] 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:43, John Bryant  > wrote:
> Thanks all for compromising, good teamwork spirit. These long email 
> discussions can be fatiguing, so I appreciate your patience. I'll take all 
> this feedback and input, and pull together a next draft. Hopefully we're just 
> about there.
> 
> Cheers
> John
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Thanks Adam, good points. Have responded in comments.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 19:58, adam steer  wrote:

> Thanks John, the document is looking good and shiny. Just a couple of
> comments on the MWG workload and timing, no objections to anything.
>
> Well done!
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 18:21, John Bryant  wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> The board has gone over the details, taken some professional advice, and
>> prepared another draft of the membership policy. I hope at this point it
>> reads well, clearly expresses intent, is workable, and is acceptable to the
>> community.
>>
>> I'd like to put this forward for a few days of community review. Please
>> respond with comments and questions, and I'll ask the board to help me in
>> responding. Please bear in mind the considerable discussion that has
>> already happened... the policy contains some compromise positions, I
>> suggest we don't re-open those discussions as it may cause delay without
>> any material benefit. Let's all stay positive and remember we're at the
>> beginning and this can evolve over time...
>>
>> Draft is here [1]. I think we should aim to proceed with a motion to
>> adopt around the end of the week.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> John
>>
>> [1]
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:43, John Bryant  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks all for compromising, good teamwork spirit. These long email
>>> discussions can be fatiguing, so I appreciate your patience. I'll take all
>>> this feedback and input, and pull together a next draft. Hopefully we're
>>> just about there.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> John
>>>
>> ___
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Adam Steer
> http://spatialised.net
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
> http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
> http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
> +61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer
>
> Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[adam steer]

Thanks John, the document is looking good and shiny. Just a couple of
comments on the MWG workload and timing, no objections to anything.

Well done!

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 18:21, John Bryant  wrote:

> Hi again,
>
> The board has gone over the details, taken some professional advice, and
> prepared another draft of the membership policy. I hope at this point it
> reads well, clearly expresses intent, is workable, and is acceptable to the
> community.
>
> I'd like to put this forward for a few days of community review. Please
> respond with comments and questions, and I'll ask the board to help me in
> responding. Please bear in mind the considerable discussion that has
> already happened... the policy contains some compromise positions, I
> suggest we don't re-open those discussions as it may cause delay without
> any material benefit. Let's all stay positive and remember we're at the
> beginning and this can evolve over time...
>
> Draft is here [1]. I think we should aim to proceed with a motion to adopt
> around the end of the week.
>
> Cheers!
> John
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:43, John Bryant  wrote:
>
>> Thanks all for compromising, good teamwork spirit. These long email
>> discussions can be fatiguing, so I appreciate your patience. I'll take all
>> this feedback and input, and pull together a next draft. Hopefully we're
>> just about there.
>>
>> Cheers
>> John
>>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>


-- 
Dr. Adam Steer
http://spatialised.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Steer
http://au.linkedin.com/in/adamsteer
http://orcid.org/-0003-0046-7236
+61 427 091 712 ::  @adamdsteer

Suits are bad for business: http://www.spatialised.net/business-penguins/
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Hi again,

The board has gone over the details, taken some professional advice, and
prepared another draft of the membership policy. I hope at this point it
reads well, clearly expresses intent, is workable, and is acceptable to the
community.

I'd like to put this forward for a few days of community review. Please
respond with comments and questions, and I'll ask the board to help me in
responding. Please bear in mind the considerable discussion that has
already happened... the policy contains some compromise positions, I
suggest we don't re-open those discussions as it may cause delay without
any material benefit. Let's all stay positive and remember we're at the
beginning and this can evolve over time...

Draft is here [1]. I think we should aim to proceed with a motion to adopt
around the end of the week.

Cheers!
John

[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA


On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:43, John Bryant  wrote:

> Thanks all for compromising, good teamwork spirit. These long email
> discussions can be fatiguing, so I appreciate your patience. I'll take all
> this feedback and input, and pull together a next draft. Hopefully we're
> just about there.
>
> Cheers
> John
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Thanks all for compromising, good teamwork spirit. These long email
discussions can be fatiguing, so I appreciate your patience. I'll take all
this feedback and input, and pull together a next draft. Hopefully we're
just about there.

Cheers
John
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Alex Leith]

Hi All

+1 from me

I like keeping things simple until they need to be more complex!

Cheers,

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 10:26, Bruce Bannerman <
bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Ed,
>
> You make some good points regarding dual affiliation with OpenStreetMap.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruce
>
> On 24 Sep 2019, at 19:16, Edoardo Neerhut  wrote:
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree we need to remember our role
> in the international community and be wary of reinventing the wheel.
>
> I wanted to address your point on the structure of membership and
> operating within the international framework. I can think of two reasons
> why we should devise a framework that works best for Oceania which is not
> necessarily the same thing as the current OSGeo membership structure.
>
>1. OSGeo Oceania was setup as a body to represent and foster the OSGeo
>community, but also OpenStreetMap efforts. On the latter, we are currently
>pending confirmation to become the recognised Local Chapter by the
>OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). OSMF has its own membership structure and
>procedures. We need to consider both if we are to represent both
>communities. I would argue that Melbourne last year proved that the
>FOSS4G + SotM coupling worked well and could be improved upon further. If
>this is to remain the case, our membership structure needs to be appealing
>to both communities.
>2. We should choose the membership structure that makes sense for our
>community at this point in time. There is a lot to learn and replicate from
>OSGeo, but I don't think we should be a carbon copy of the international
>structure. We have unique characteristics such as diverse economic
>conditions and a relatively small community when compared to Europe/North
>America. I think innovation in the structure of our community can go both
>ways. Both international -> down and local -> up.
>
> There is a lot to consider here in this membership discussion and many
> ways to approach this, so I am appreciating the discussion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 03:03, Bruce Bannerman <
> bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi John and fellow OO Community Members,
>>
>> I’ve now gone through the proposed document and comments either in the
>> document or on this list.
>>
>> Some observations:
>>
>>
>>- We need to remember that we are part of the global OSGeo Community
>>and operate within that community and framework. In my opinion the
>>International OSGeo is where much of the community’s work occurs. OSGeo
>>Oceania provides the regional focus and allows us to coordinate regionally
>>and to communicate global developments and efforts.
>>
>>
>>
>>- Therefore it is not appropriate that we set up a separate framework
>>to replace OSGeo (not that I see that anyone has suggested this).
>>
>>
>>
>>- I see that the main reason for the perceived need for two tiers of
>>membership within OSGeo Oceania (OO) is to ensure that:
>>   - We have people as directors of the legal entity who hold
>>   positive attributes that we admire. These attributes include:
>>  - acting for the greater good of OSGeo Oceania and OSGeo;
>>  - active and positive contributions to community activities;
>>  and
>>  - are of good and ethical repute.
>>  -
>>  - There is also a secondary requirement as highlighted by
>>   Alister: to remove Directors who won’t resign voluntarily from the OO 
>> legal
>>   entity at the end of their term, or who are not acting in the best
>>   interests of either OSGeo Oceania or OSGeo.
>>
>>
>>
>>- As noted by several people, the overheads of managing an additional
>>membership process for OSGeo Oceania (in addition to that required for
>>OSGeo) is likely to be onerous. However, we still need a two tier
>>membership process to protect the best interests of the OSGeo and OSGeo
>>communities and the OO Legal entity.
>>
>>
>>
>>- Therefore in the interest of keeping things simple, I propose the
>>following variant to what has been discussed:
>>   - Keep a two tier membership process as outlined in the document.
>>   - The main membership categary comprises those who self nominate
>>   to be members of the OO Community, by signing up to one of the OSGeo
>>   Oceania mailing lists and participate in discussion and activities.
>>   - The second Charter Member category automatically comprises OSGeo
>>   Charter Members [1] who are also members of the OO Community.
>>
>>
>>
>>- This approach:
>>   - negates the need for having OO to manage a separate membership
>>   process
>>   - makes clear the relationship between OSGeo and OSGeo Oceania.
>>   - Uses existing and proven OSGeo contributers of good repute by
>>   way of OSGeo Charter Members.
>>   - Allows for new OSGeo Charter M

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Bruce Bannerman]

Thanks Ed,

You make some good points regarding dual affiliation with OpenStreetMap.

Cheers,

Bruce

> On 24 Sep 2019, at 19:16, Edoardo Neerhut  wrote:
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree we need to remember our role in 
> the international community and be wary of reinventing the wheel.
> 
> I wanted to address your point on the structure of membership and operating 
> within the international framework. I can think of two reasons why we should 
> devise a framework that works best for Oceania which is not necessarily the 
> same thing as the current OSGeo membership structure.
> OSGeo Oceania was setup as a body to represent and foster the OSGeo 
> community, but also OpenStreetMap efforts. On the latter, we are currently 
> pending confirmation to become the recognised Local Chapter by the 
> OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). OSMF has its own membership structure and 
> procedures. We need to consider both if we are to represent both communities. 
> I would argue that Melbourne last year proved that the FOSS4G + SotM coupling 
> worked well and could be improved upon further. If this is to remain the 
> case, our membership structure needs to be appealing to both communities.
> We should choose the membership structure that makes sense for our community 
> at this point in time. There is a lot to learn and replicate from OSGeo, but 
> I don't think we should be a carbon copy of the international structure. We 
> have unique characteristics such as diverse economic conditions and a 
> relatively small community when compared to Europe/North America. I think 
> innovation in the structure of our community can go both ways. Both 
> international -> down and local -> up.
> There is a lot to consider here in this membership discussion and many ways 
> to approach this, so I am appreciating the discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ed
> 
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 03:03, Bruce Bannerman 
>>  wrote:
>> Hi John and fellow OO Community Members,
>> 
>> I’ve now gone through the proposed document and comments either in the 
>> document or on this list.
>> 
>> Some observations:
>> 
>> We need to remember that we are part of the global OSGeo Community and 
>> operate within that community and framework. In my opinion the International 
>> OSGeo is where much of the community’s work occurs. OSGeo Oceania provides 
>> the regional focus and allows us to coordinate regionally and to communicate 
>> global developments and efforts.
>> 
>> Therefore it is not appropriate that we set up a separate framework to 
>> replace OSGeo (not that I see that anyone has suggested this).
>> 
>> I see that the main reason for the perceived need for two tiers of 
>> membership within OSGeo Oceania (OO) is to ensure that: 
>> We have people as directors of the legal entity who hold positive attributes 
>> that we admire. These attributes include:
>> acting for the greater good of OSGeo Oceania and OSGeo;
>> active and positive contributions to community activities; and 
>> are of good and ethical repute.
>> 
>> There is also a secondary requirement as highlighted by Alister: to remove 
>> Directors who won’t resign voluntarily from the OO legal entity at the end 
>> of their term, or who are not acting in the best interests of either OSGeo 
>> Oceania or OSGeo.
>> 
>> As noted by several people, the overheads of managing an additional 
>> membership process for OSGeo Oceania (in addition to that required for 
>> OSGeo) is likely to be onerous. However, we still need a two tier membership 
>> process to protect the best interests of the OSGeo and OSGeo communities and 
>> the OO Legal entity.
>> 
>> Therefore in the interest of keeping things simple, I propose the following 
>> variant to what has been discussed:
>> Keep a two tier membership process as outlined in the document.
>> The main membership categary comprises those who self nominate to be members 
>> of the OO Community, by signing up to one of the OSGeo Oceania mailing lists 
>> and participate in discussion and activities.
>> The second Charter Member category automatically comprises OSGeo Charter 
>> Members [1] who are also members of the OO Community.
>> 
>> This approach:
>> negates the need for having OO to manage a separate membership process
>> makes clear the relationship between OSGeo and OSGeo Oceania.
>> Uses existing and proven OSGeo contributers of good repute by way of OSGeo 
>> Charter Members. 
>> Allows for new OSGeo Charter Members to be proposed from the OSGeo Oceania 
>> community within the tried and tested OSGeo Charter Member process.
>> 
>> There will still be the need to:
>> Define our membership levels and processes
>> Define and hold an election process (every two years?) to refresh our pool 
>> of board members / legal entity directors.
>> (probably) revise the OO Legal Enity’s Articles of Association to allow for 
>> a process for OSGeo Charter Members (within the to be defined Oceania 
>> region) to remove non-performing dir

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Bruce Bannerman]

Cameron,

I like the idea of self identification. Would you just see this as being a 
declaration of OO membership within the existing OSGeo Advocates process, or a 
separate process?

Bruce


> On 26 Sep 2019, at 06:14, Cameron Shorter  wrote:
> 
> +1 to single tier membership with possibility of adding a self identifying 
> system later.
> 
> We previously did this with OSGeo Advocates: 
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate#Introduction
> 
>> On 25/9/19 6:43 pm, John Bryant wrote:
>> Hi all, really pleased to see all this input, thanks for your time & energy.
>> 
>> This is obviously a topic that people feel strongly about, which is great. I 
>> feel that we're all aligned on the key principles: that we want to make the 
>> organisation accessible to new members, and we want it to be run 
>> responsibly, ie. members should be able to influence how it's run. There's a 
>> bit of distance between the various proposals on the table so far, but 
>> they're all aiming at these principles. To make progress, it looks like 
>> we're going to need to make some compromises.
>> 
>> I fully agree with Edoardo's reasoning for preferring a home-grown approach 
>> to membership. We're an OSGeo local chapter, but we're also more than that, 
>> notably (as Ed mentioned) we're in the process of applying to be a local 
>>   chapter of OSMF as well. We need to ensure we wholeheartedly embrace 
>> the parts of our community that don't fall under the OSGeo umbrella.
>> 
>> I think we're roughly all on the same page re: voting membership, ie. we 
>> need members who vote, and they should pass some sort of eligibility 
>> threshold.
>> 
>> The key point of disagreement seems to be whether we have a 2nd tier of 
>> membership with a lower eligibility threshold, one where anyone can join, 
>> but there are no rights/responsibilities associated with it. There have been 
>> some questions asked about what real value this provides to such a member 
>> and to the organisation, which I struggle to answer. I'm also concerned 
>> about the extra messaging that would be required to communicate this to the 
>> community to overcome any potential confusion... this translates to work, 
>> and as a volunteer-run organisation, our time & energy have limits. Finally, 
>> I don't see that the eligibility threshold we're considering for membership 
>> is so high that it functionally excludes anyone who truly wants to be a part 
>> of this.
>> 
>> I strongly identify with the value proposition of making the organisation 
>> accessible to everyone though, so this is difficult for me... 
>> 
>> But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent 
>> outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this 
>> question: Can we live with a single membership type for now, which includes 
>> voting privileges?
>> 
>> I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our key 
>> priorities (voting membership, protect the org).
>> 
>> Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily extend 
>> it with some process whereby people in the community can self-identify as a 
>> "community member", or "citizen", or something like that. But there is much 
>> to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we really need to stay focused on 
>> that which must be done.
>> 
>> Something needs to give, so I'm hoping for some compromise.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
> -- 
> Cameron Shorter
> Technology Demystifier
> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
> 
> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Bruce Bannerman]

John thanks for the link to the Company Constitution (in your response to 
Alister).

I can see that:

- a Director’s term is for twelve months. After which they are to retire. The 
obligation appears to be on the director to actually do so.

- the board can expel a member who has breached an obligation under the 
constitution by a vote of the board with 75% of those present agreeing to do so.

It may be prudent to make this situation explicit in the event the outgoing 
director does not actually retire from the board.

One other aspect that may be unclear is that this vote about the type of 
membership that we want in OSGeo Oceania is not just about community 
membership, but jointly about membership of the OO legal entity.

Based on what I’ve read, I’ll now change my vote, but suggest that we revisit 
this in one to two years time to make sure that it is achieving what we want.

Therefore:

+1 

Kind regards,

Bruce

> On 25 Sep 2019, at 20:23, John Bryant  wrote:
> 
> Sorry Bruce, I'm confused. You say you can live with a single membership 
> class which is the question at hand, but you're -1?
> 
> Re: a process to remove directors, we are governed by the Corporations Act 
> and our constitution. I believe these address this problem, though we can 
> clarify this if needed. I don't agree that OSGeo charter members are an 
> appropriate way to address this problem.
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Cameron Shorter]

+1 to single tier membership with possibility of adding a self 
identifying system later.


We previously did this with OSGeo Advocates: 
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate#Introduction


On 25/9/19 6:43 pm, John Bryant wrote:
Hi all, really pleased to see all this input, thanks for your time & 
energy.


This is obviously a topic that people feel strongly about, which is 
great. I feel that we're all aligned on the key principles: that we 
want to make the organisation accessible to new members, and we want 
it to be run responsibly, ie. members should be able to influence how 
it's run. There's a bit of distance between the various proposals on 
the table so far, but they're all aiming at these principles. To make 
progress, it looks like we're going to need to make some compromises.


I fully agree with Edoardo's reasoning for preferring a home-grown 
approach to membership. We're an OSGeo local chapter, but we're also 
more than that, notably (as Ed mentioned) we're in the process of 
applying to be a local chapter of OSMF as well. We need to ensure we 
wholeheartedly embrace the parts of our community that don't fall 
under the OSGeo umbrella.


I think we're roughly all on the same page re: voting membership, ie. 
we need members who vote, and they should pass some sort of 
eligibility threshold.


The key point of disagreement seems to be whether we have a 2nd tier 
of membership with a lower eligibility threshold, one where anyone can 
join, but there are no rights/responsibilities associated with it. 
There have been some questions asked about what real value this 
provides to such a member and to the organisation, which I struggle to 
answer. I'm also concerned about the extra messaging that would be 
required to communicate this to the community to overcome any 
potential confusion... this translates to work, and as a volunteer-run 
organisation, our time & energy have limits. Finally, I don't see that 
the eligibility threshold we're considering for membership is so high 
that it functionally excludes anyone who truly wants to be a part of this.


I strongly identify with the value proposition of making the 
organisation accessible to everyone though, so this is difficult for 
me...


But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent 
outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this 
question: *Can we live with a single membership type for now, which 
includes voting privileges?*


I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our 
key priorities (voting membership, protect the org).


Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily 
extend it with some process whereby people in the community can 
self-identify as a "community member", or "citizen", or something like 
that. But there is much to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we 
really need to stay focused on that which *must* be done.


Something needs to give, so I'm hoping for some compromise.

Thanks
John

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania


--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Cameron Shorter]

+1 to single tier membership with possibility of adding a self 
identifying system later.


We previously did this with OSGeo Advocates: 
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate#Introduction


On 25/9/19 6:43 pm, John Bryant wrote:
Hi all, really pleased to see all this input, thanks for your time & 
energy.


This is obviously a topic that people feel strongly about, which is 
great. I feel that we're all aligned on the key principles: that we 
want to make the organisation accessible to new members, and we want 
it to be run responsibly, ie. members should be able to influence how 
it's run. There's a bit of distance between the various proposals on 
the table so far, but they're all aiming at these principles. To make 
progress, it looks like we're going to need to make some compromises.


I fully agree with Edoardo's reasoning for preferring a home-grown 
approach to membership. We're an OSGeo local chapter, but we're also 
more than that, notably (as Ed mentioned) we're in the process of 
applying to be a local chapter of OSMF as well. We need to ensure we 
wholeheartedly embrace the parts of our community that don't fall 
under the OSGeo umbrella.


I think we're roughly all on the same page re: voting membership, ie. 
we need members who vote, and they should pass some sort of 
eligibility threshold.


The key point of disagreement seems to be whether we have a 2nd tier 
of membership with a lower eligibility threshold, one where anyone can 
join, but there are no rights/responsibilities associated with it. 
There have been some questions asked about what real value this 
provides to such a member and to the organisation, which I struggle to 
answer. I'm also concerned about the extra messaging that would be 
required to communicate this to the community to overcome any 
potential confusion... this translates to work, and as a volunteer-run 
organisation, our time & energy have limits. Finally, I don't see that 
the eligibility threshold we're considering for membership is so high 
that it functionally excludes anyone who truly wants to be a part of this.


I strongly identify with the value proposition of making the 
organisation accessible to everyone though, so this is difficult for 
me...


But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent 
outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this 
question: *Can we live with a single membership type for now, which 
includes voting privileges?*


I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our 
key priorities (voting membership, protect the org).


Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily 
extend it with some process whereby people in the community can 
self-identify as a "community member", or "citizen", or something like 
that. But there is much to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we 
really need to stay focused on that which *must* be done.


Something needs to give, so I'm hoping for some compromise.

Thanks
John

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania


--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Alister Hood]

Hi, I was thinking along similar lines to Robert: people sign
themselves up and become "Provisional" Members.  By default their
membership is accepted after a set period of time.  I thought in some
cases the board may want to fast track membership for someone who is
making an obvious contribution to the community, but it is probably
better to say this is a set period which allows for people to raise
any concerns with a prospective member, and stick to it.

Regards,
Alister

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 21:00, Robert Coup  wrote:
...
>
> IMO if protection is really necessary, it could be as simple as "only people 
> who have been members for 3mo+ can vote". If there's some sudden influx then 
> the org has 3 months to change the rules/sort it out. eg. InternetNZ has this 
> (S3.6). Limiting officers to 2 per company might be sane as well. But I could 
> happily live without any protection as well.
>
> Thanks
>
> Rob :)
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Bruce Bannerman]

John,

Do you have a link to these documents?

Bruce


> On 25 Sep 2019, at 20:23, John Bryant  wrote:
> 
> Sorry Bruce, I'm confused. You say you can live with a single membership 
> class which is the question at hand, but you're -1?
> 
> Re: a process to remove directors, we are governed by the Corporations Act 
> and our constitution. I believe these address this problem, though we can 
> clarify this if needed. I don't agree that OSGeo charter members are an 
> appropriate way to address this problem.
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Sorry Bruce, I'm confused. You say you can live with a single membership
class which is the question at hand, but you're -1?

Re: a process to remove directors, we are governed by the Corporations Act
and our constitution. I believe these address this problem, though we can
clarify this if needed. I don't agree that OSGeo charter members are an
appropriate way to address this problem.
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Bruce Bannerman]

-1

Bruce

We need to get this resolved and not put it off to the never never.

I can live with a single membership class for voting on issues and board 
members.

However, we need to address the issue of having a process to remove 
non-performing etc Directors of the legal entity, e.g. those who refuse to 
resign and hand over control once voted out.  Perhaps a process using OSGeo 
Charter members from the OO community that I mentioned yesterday.

Kind regards,

Bruce


> On 25 Sep 2019, at 18:43, John Bryant  wrote:
> 
> Hi all, really pleased to see all this input, thanks for your time & energy.
> 
> This is obviously a topic that people feel strongly about, which is great. I 
> feel that we're all aligned on the key principles: that we want to make the 
> organisation accessible to new members, and we want it to be run responsibly, 
> ie. members should be able to influence how it's run. There's a bit of 
> distance between the various proposals on the table so far, but they're all 
> aiming at these principles. To make progress, it looks like we're going to 
> need to make some compromises.
> 
> I fully agree with Edoardo's reasoning for preferring a home-grown approach 
> to membership. We're an OSGeo local chapter, but we're also more than that, 
> notably (as Ed mentioned) we're in the process of applying to be a local 
> chapter of OSMF as well. We need to ensure we wholeheartedly embrace the 
> parts of our community that don't fall under the OSGeo umbrella.
> 
> I think we're roughly all on the same page re: voting membership, ie. we need 
> members who vote, and they should pass some sort of eligibility threshold.
> 
> The key point of disagreement seems to be whether we have a 2nd tier of 
> membership with a lower eligibility threshold, one where anyone can join, but 
> there are no rights/responsibilities associated with it. There have been some 
> questions asked about what real value this provides to such a member and to 
> the organisation, which I struggle to answer. I'm also concerned about the 
> extra messaging that would be required to communicate this to the community 
> to overcome any potential confusion... this translates to work, and as a 
> volunteer-run organisation, our time & energy have limits. Finally, I don't 
> see that the eligibility threshold we're considering for membership is so 
> high that it functionally excludes anyone who truly wants to be a part of 
> this.
> 
> I strongly identify with the value proposition of making the organisation 
> accessible to everyone though, so this is difficult for me... 
> 
> But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent 
> outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this 
> question: Can we live with a single membership type for now, which includes 
> voting privileges?
> 
> I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our key 
> priorities (voting membership, protect the org).
> 
> Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily extend it 
> with some process whereby people in the community can self-identify as a 
> "community member", or "citizen", or something like that. But there is much 
> to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we really need to stay focused on 
> that which must be done.
> 
> Something needs to give, so I'm hoping for some compromise.
> 
> Thanks
> John
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Robert Coup]

Hi John,

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:44, John Bryant  wrote:

>
> But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent
> outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this
> question: *Can we live with a single membership type for now, which
> includes voting privileges?*
>
> I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our key
> priorities (voting membership, protect the org).
>

+1 on Single Tier.

IMO if protection is really necessary, it could be as simple as "only
people who have been members for 3mo+ can vote". If there's some sudden
influx then the org has 3 months to change the rules/sort it out. eg.
InternetNZ has this (S3.6 ).
Limiting officers to 2 per company might be sane as well. But I could
happily live without any protection as well.

Thanks

Rob :)
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Duncan Jackson]

+1

Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily extend
it with some process whereby people in the community can self-identify as a
"community member", or "citizen", or something like that. But there is much
to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we really need to stay focused on
that which must be done.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 18:14, John Bryant  wrote:

> Hi all, really pleased to see all this input, thanks for your time &
> energy.
>
> This is obviously a topic that people feel strongly about, which is great.
> I feel that we're all aligned on the key principles: that we want to make
> the organisation accessible to new members, and we want it to be run
> responsibly, ie. members should be able to influence how it's run. There's
> a bit of distance between the various proposals on the table so far, but
> they're all aiming at these principles. To make progress, it looks like
> we're going to need to make some compromises.
>
> I fully agree with Edoardo's reasoning for preferring a home-grown
> approach to membership. We're an OSGeo local chapter, but we're also more
> than that, notably (as Ed mentioned) we're in the process of applying to be
> a local chapter of OSMF as well. We need to ensure we wholeheartedly
> embrace the parts of our community that don't fall under the OSGeo umbrella.
>
> I think we're roughly all on the same page re: voting membership, ie. we
> need members who vote, and they should pass some sort of eligibility
> threshold.
>
> The key point of disagreement seems to be whether we have a 2nd tier of
> membership with a lower eligibility threshold, one where anyone can join,
> but there are no rights/responsibilities associated with it. There have
> been some questions asked about what real value this provides to such a
> member and to the organisation, which I struggle to answer. I'm also
> concerned about the extra messaging that would be required to communicate
> this to the community to overcome any potential confusion... this
> translates to work, and as a volunteer-run organisation, our time & energy
> have limits. Finally, I don't see that the eligibility threshold we're
> considering for membership is so high that it functionally excludes anyone
> who truly wants to be a part of this.
>
> I strongly identify with the value proposition of making the organisation
> accessible to everyone though, so this is difficult for me...
>
> But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent
> outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this
> question: *Can we live with a single membership type for now, which
> includes voting privileges?*
>
> I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our key
> priorities (voting membership, protect the org).
>
> Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily extend
> it with some process whereby people in the community can self-identify as a
> "community member", or "citizen", or something like that. But there is much
> to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we really need to stay focused on
> that which *must* be done.
>
> Something needs to give, so I'm hoping for some compromise.
>
> Thanks
> John
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Hi all, really pleased to see all this input, thanks for your time & energy.

This is obviously a topic that people feel strongly about, which is great.
I feel that we're all aligned on the key principles: that we want to make
the organisation accessible to new members, and we want it to be run
responsibly, ie. members should be able to influence how it's run. There's
a bit of distance between the various proposals on the table so far, but
they're all aiming at these principles. To make progress, it looks like
we're going to need to make some compromises.

I fully agree with Edoardo's reasoning for preferring a home-grown approach
to membership. We're an OSGeo local chapter, but we're also more than that,
notably (as Ed mentioned) we're in the process of applying to be a local
chapter of OSMF as well. We need to ensure we wholeheartedly embrace the
parts of our community that don't fall under the OSGeo umbrella.

I think we're roughly all on the same page re: voting membership, ie. we
need members who vote, and they should pass some sort of eligibility
threshold.

The key point of disagreement seems to be whether we have a 2nd tier of
membership with a lower eligibility threshold, one where anyone can join,
but there are no rights/responsibilities associated with it. There have
been some questions asked about what real value this provides to such a
member and to the organisation, which I struggle to answer. I'm also
concerned about the extra messaging that would be required to communicate
this to the community to overcome any potential confusion... this
translates to work, and as a volunteer-run organisation, our time & energy
have limits. Finally, I don't see that the eligibility threshold we're
considering for membership is so high that it functionally excludes anyone
who truly wants to be a part of this.

I strongly identify with the value proposition of making the organisation
accessible to everyone though, so this is difficult for me...

But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent
outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this
question: *Can we live with a single membership type for now, which
includes voting privileges?*

I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our key
priorities (voting membership, protect the org).

Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily extend
it with some process whereby people in the community can self-identify as a
"community member", or "citizen", or something like that. But there is much
to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we really need to stay focused on
that which *must* be done.

Something needs to give, so I'm hoping for some compromise.

Thanks
John
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Edoardo Neerhut]

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree we need to remember our role in
the international community and be wary of reinventing the wheel.

I wanted to address your point on the structure of membership and operating
within the international framework. I can think of two reasons why we
should devise a framework that works best for Oceania which is not
necessarily the same thing as the current OSGeo membership structure.

   1. OSGeo Oceania was setup as a body to represent and foster the OSGeo
   community, but also OpenStreetMap efforts. On the latter, we are currently
   pending confirmation to become the recognised Local Chapter by the
   OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). OSMF has its own membership structure and
   procedures. We need to consider both if we are to represent both
   communities. I would argue that Melbourne last year proved that the
   FOSS4G + SotM coupling worked well and could be improved upon further. If
   this is to remain the case, our membership structure needs to be appealing
   to both communities.
   2. We should choose the membership structure that makes sense for our
   community at this point in time. There is a lot to learn and replicate from
   OSGeo, but I don't think we should be a carbon copy of the international
   structure. We have unique characteristics such as diverse economic
   conditions and a relatively small community when compared to Europe/North
   America. I think innovation in the structure of our community can go both
   ways. Both international -> down and local -> up.

There is a lot to consider here in this membership discussion and many ways
to approach this, so I am appreciating the discussion.

Cheers,

Ed

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 03:03, Bruce Bannerman <
bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John and fellow OO Community Members,
>
> I’ve now gone through the proposed document and comments either in the
> document or on this list.
>
> Some observations:
>
>
>- We need to remember that we are part of the global OSGeo Community
>and operate within that community and framework. In my opinion the
>International OSGeo is where much of the community’s work occurs. OSGeo
>Oceania provides the regional focus and allows us to coordinate regionally
>and to communicate global developments and efforts.
>
>
>
>- Therefore it is not appropriate that we set up a separate framework
>to replace OSGeo (not that I see that anyone has suggested this).
>
>
>
>- I see that the main reason for the perceived need for two tiers of
>membership within OSGeo Oceania (OO) is to ensure that:
>   - We have people as directors of the legal entity who hold positive
>   attributes that we admire. These attributes include:
>  - acting for the greater good of OSGeo Oceania and OSGeo;
>  - active and positive contributions to community activities; and
>  - are of good and ethical repute.
>  -
>  - There is also a secondary requirement as highlighted by
>   Alister: to remove Directors who won’t resign voluntarily from the OO 
> legal
>   entity at the end of their term, or who are not acting in the best
>   interests of either OSGeo Oceania or OSGeo.
>
>
>
>- As noted by several people, the overheads of managing an additional
>membership process for OSGeo Oceania (in addition to that required for
>OSGeo) is likely to be onerous. However, we still need a two tier
>membership process to protect the best interests of the OSGeo and OSGeo
>communities and the OO Legal entity.
>
>
>
>- Therefore in the interest of keeping things simple, I propose the
>following variant to what has been discussed:
>   - Keep a two tier membership process as outlined in the document.
>   - The main membership categary comprises those who self nominate to
>   be members of the OO Community, by signing up to one of the OSGeo 
> Oceania
>   mailing lists and participate in discussion and activities.
>   - The second Charter Member category automatically comprises OSGeo
>   Charter Members [1] who are also members of the OO Community.
>
>
>
>- This approach:
>   - negates the need for having OO to manage a separate membership
>   process
>   - makes clear the relationship between OSGeo and OSGeo Oceania.
>   - Uses existing and proven OSGeo contributers of good repute by way
>   of OSGeo Charter Members.
>   - Allows for new OSGeo Charter Members to be proposed from the
>   OSGeo Oceania community within the tried and tested OSGeo Charter Member
>   process.
>
>
>
>- There will still be the need to:
>   - Define our membership levels and processes
>   - Define and hold an election process (every two years?) to refresh
>   our pool of board members / legal entity directors.
>   - (probably) revise the OO Legal Enity’s Articles of Association to
>   allow for a process for OSGeo Charter Memb

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Bruce Bannerman]

Hi John and fellow OO Community Members,

I’ve now gone through the proposed document and comments either in the document 
or on this list.

Some observations:

We need to remember that we are part of the global OSGeo Community and operate 
within that community and framework. In my opinion the International OSGeo is 
where much of the community’s work occurs. OSGeo Oceania provides the regional 
focus and allows us to coordinate regionally and to communicate global 
developments and efforts.

Therefore it is not appropriate that we set up a separate framework to replace 
OSGeo (not that I see that anyone has suggested this).

I see that the main reason for the perceived need for two tiers of membership 
within OSGeo Oceania (OO) is to ensure that: 
We have people as directors of the legal entity who hold positive attributes 
that we admire. These attributes include:
acting for the greater good of OSGeo Oceania and OSGeo;
active and positive contributions to community activities; and 
are of good and ethical repute.

There is also a secondary requirement as highlighted by Alister: to remove 
Directors who won’t resign voluntarily from the OO legal entity at the end of 
their term, or who are not acting in the best interests of either OSGeo Oceania 
or OSGeo.

As noted by several people, the overheads of managing an additional membership 
process for OSGeo Oceania (in addition to that required for OSGeo) is likely to 
be onerous. However, we still need a two tier membership process to protect the 
best interests of the OSGeo and OSGeo communities and the OO Legal entity.

Therefore in the interest of keeping things simple, I propose the following 
variant to what has been discussed:
Keep a two tier membership process as outlined in the document.
The main membership categary comprises those who self nominate to be members of 
the OO Community, by signing up to one of the OSGeo Oceania mailing lists and 
participate in discussion and activities.
The second Charter Member category automatically comprises OSGeo Charter 
Members [1] who are also members of the OO Community.

This approach:
negates the need for having OO to manage a separate membership process
makes clear the relationship between OSGeo and OSGeo Oceania.
Uses existing and proven OSGeo contributers of good repute by way of OSGeo 
Charter Members. 
Allows for new OSGeo Charter Members to be proposed from the OSGeo Oceania 
community within the tried and tested OSGeo Charter Member process.

There will still be the need to:
Define our membership levels and processes
Define and hold an election process (every two years?) to refresh our pool of 
board members / legal entity directors.
(probably) revise the OO Legal Enity’s Articles of Association to allow for a 
process for OSGeo Charter Members (within the to be defined Oceania region) to 
remove non-performing directors etc of the legal entity etc.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

Bruce

[1] https://www.osgeo.org/about/charter-members/ 
 




> On 23 Sep 2019, at 18:29, John Bryant  wrote:
> 
> Thanks all for a quite robust discussion on this important topic, it's really 
> great to see this much engagement. There seems to be a fair bit of discomfort 
> with the two tier model proposed, and I agree that it may introduce more 
> complexity than we really want. To move forward, I'd like to propose a 
> simplified alternative:
> We have a single type of membership that confers voting rights.
> To ensure a reasonable level of engagement, while protecting the org against 
> bad actors/hostile takeover/etc, we roughly follow this process:
> take nominations for new members
> use an eligibility threshold that balances accessibility with genuine 
> engagement
> include a ratification step that could be done by the board, or a membership 
> working group (TBD)
> This doesn't capture all the detail of how this would work, but if it's 
> acceptable in broad strokes, I can update our draft policy and we can work 
> through the details over next couple of days.
> 
> Any objections?
> 
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Alex Leith]

I'm not sure how we'd measure participation as a gate to membership.

One alternative is to have an opt-in requirement each year, which will wean
out the disengaged. That could just be a 'click this link in an email' type
form. I would have thought a nominal annual fee, again, without
auto-renewal, would work, but from what I hear it doesn't make much
difference with OSM, and adds the requirement for us to set up a charging
mechanism.

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 06:18, Cameron Shorter 
wrote:

> Greg, I'm proposing that in a 1 level membership the only barrier be email
> list participation or some other OSGeo/OSM activity, and voting for board.
> I don't think people will be wanting to self identify with anything lower.
> On 24/9/19 6:13 am, Greg Lauer wrote:
>
> The problem with this proposal is that we have barrier for general
> membership. I still support the 2 tier model and comfortable that we can
> manage the logistics with out too much issue
>
> Greg
>
> On 23 Sep 2019, at 18:30, John Bryant 
>  wrote:
>
> 
> Thanks all for a quite robust discussion on this important topic, it's
> really great to see this much engagement. There seems to be a fair bit of
> discomfort with the two tier model proposed, and I agree that it may
> introduce more complexity than we really want. To move forward, I'd like to
> propose a simplified alternative:
>
>- We have a single type of membership that confers voting rights.
>- To ensure a reasonable level of engagement, while protecting the org
>against bad actors/hostile takeover/etc, we roughly follow this process:
>   - take nominations for new members
>   - use an eligibility threshold that balances accessibility with
>   genuine engagement
>   - include a ratification step that could be done by the board, or a
>   membership working group (TBD)
>
> This doesn't capture all the detail of how this would work, but if it's
> acceptable in broad strokes, I can update our draft policy and we can work
> through the details over next couple of days.
>
> Any objections?
>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
>
> ___
> Oceania mailing 
> listOceania@lists.osgeo.orghttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Technology Demystifier
> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>
> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>


-- 
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Cameron Shorter]

Greg, I'm proposing that in a 1 level membership the only barrier be 
email list participation or some other OSGeo/OSM activity, and voting 
for board. I don't think people will be wanting to self identify with 
anything lower.


On 24/9/19 6:13 am, Greg Lauer wrote:
The problem with this proposal is that we have barrier for general 
membership. I still support the 2 tier model and comfortable that we 
can manage the logistics with out too much issue


Greg


On 23 Sep 2019, at 18:30, John Bryant  wrote:


Thanks all for a quite robust discussion on this important topic, 
it's really great to see this much engagement. There seems to be a 
fair bit of discomfort with the two tier model proposed, and I agree 
that it may introduce more complexity than we really want. To move 
forward, I'd like to propose a simplified alternative:


  * We have a single type of membership that confers voting rights.
  * To ensure a reasonable level of engagement, while protecting the
org against bad actors/hostile takeover/etc, we roughly follow
this process:
  o take nominations for new members
  o use an eligibility threshold that balances accessibility with
genuine engagement
  o include a ratification step that could be done by the board,
or a membership working group (TBD)

This doesn't capture all the detail of how this would work, but if 
it's acceptable in broad strokes, I can update our draft policy and 
we can work through the details over next couple of days.


Any objections?

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania


___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania


--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Greg Lauer]

The problem with this proposal is that we have barrier for general membership. 
I still support the 2 tier model and comfortable that we can manage the 
logistics with out too much issue

Greg

> On 23 Sep 2019, at 18:30, John Bryant  wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks all for a quite robust discussion on this important topic, it's really 
> great to see this much engagement. There seems to be a fair bit of discomfort 
> with the two tier model proposed, and I agree that it may introduce more 
> complexity than we really want. To move forward, I'd like to propose a 
> simplified alternative:
> We have a single type of membership that confers voting rights.
> To ensure a reasonable level of engagement, while protecting the org against 
> bad actors/hostile takeover/etc, we roughly follow this process:
> take nominations for new members
> use an eligibility threshold that balances accessibility with genuine 
> engagement
> include a ratification step that could be done by the board, or a membership 
> working group (TBD)
> This doesn't capture all the detail of how this would work, but if it's 
> acceptable in broad strokes, I can update our draft policy and we can work 
> through the details over next couple of days.
> 
> Any objections?
> 
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Kerry Smyth]

No objects

Kerry Smyth

 

From: Oceania  On Behalf Of John Bryant
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2019 4:30 PM
To: Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

 

Thanks all for a quite robust discussion on this important topic, it's really 
great to see this much engagement. There seems to be a fair bit of discomfort 
with the two tier model proposed, and I agree that it may introduce more 
complexity than we really want. To move forward, I'd like to propose a 
simplified alternative:

*   We have a single type of membership that confers voting rights.
*   To ensure a reasonable level of engagement, while protecting the org 
against bad actors/hostile takeover/etc, we roughly follow this process:

*   take nominations for new members
*   use an eligibility threshold that balances accessibility with genuine 
engagement
*   include a ratification step that could be done by the board, or a 
membership working group (TBD)

This doesn't capture all the detail of how this would work, but if it's 
acceptable in broad strokes, I can update our draft policy and we can work 
through the details over next couple of days.

 

Any objections?

 

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

I would vote for no extra decision round - just as simple as, if you're a
member, you vote.
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[adam steer]

Maybe we need to figure out what membership means.

Does it mean ' I as a member identify with this community'

' I as a member feel entitled to something from this organisation'

... something else?

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, 18:30 John Bryant,  wrote:

> Thanks all for a quite robust discussion on this important topic, it's
> really great to see this much engagement. There seems to be a fair bit of
> discomfort with the two tier model proposed, and I agree that it may
> introduce more complexity than we really want. To move forward, I'd like to
> propose a simplified alternative:
>
>- We have a single type of membership that confers voting rights.
>- To ensure a reasonable level of engagement, while protecting the org
>against bad actors/hostile takeover/etc, we roughly follow this process:
>   - take nominations for new members
>   - use an eligibility threshold that balances accessibility with
>   genuine engagement
>   - include a ratification step that could be done by the board, or a
>   membership working group (TBD)
>
> This doesn't capture all the detail of how this would work, but if it's
> acceptable in broad strokes, I can update our draft policy and we can work
> through the details over next couple of days.
>
> Any objections?
>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[adam steer]

Hi  John, all

Would this mean we nominate general members and then have another decision
round to decide on voting rights?

I'm not yet convinced that it's simpler than 'anyone can join themselves'
and 'voting members are nominated'..

Thanks,

Adam




On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, 18:30 John Bryant,  wrote:

> Thanks all for a quite robust discussion on this important topic, it's
> really great to see this much engagement. There seems to be a fair bit of
> discomfort with the two tier model proposed, and I agree that it may
> introduce more complexity than we really want. To move forward, I'd like to
> propose a simplified alternative:
>
>- We have a single type of membership that confers voting rights.
>- To ensure a reasonable level of engagement, while protecting the org
>against bad actors/hostile takeover/etc, we roughly follow this process:
>   - take nominations for new members
>   - use an eligibility threshold that balances accessibility with
>   genuine engagement
>   - include a ratification step that could be done by the board, or a
>   membership working group (TBD)
>
> This doesn't capture all the detail of how this would work, but if it's
> acceptable in broad strokes, I can update our draft policy and we can work
> through the details over next couple of days.
>
> Any objections?
>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Thanks all for a quite robust discussion on this important topic, it's
really great to see this much engagement. There seems to be a fair bit of
discomfort with the two tier model proposed, and I agree that it may
introduce more complexity than we really want. To move forward, I'd like to
propose a simplified alternative:

   - We have a single type of membership that confers voting rights.
   - To ensure a reasonable level of engagement, while protecting the org
   against bad actors/hostile takeover/etc, we roughly follow this process:
  - take nominations for new members
  - use an eligibility threshold that balances accessibility with
  genuine engagement
  - include a ratification step that could be done by the board, or a
  membership working group (TBD)

This doesn't capture all the detail of how this would work, but if it's
acceptable in broad strokes, I can update our draft policy and we can work
through the details over next couple of days.

Any objections?
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Thanks Bruce, yes it's still there.
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Bruce Bannerman]

Hi John,

I’ll try and have a look and provide comments tomorrow.

Sorry, other priorities at the moment.

Can the latest version of the doc still be found at the URL at [1] below?

Bruce

Bruce


> On 17 Sep 2019, at 21:55, John Bryant  wrote:
> 
> Hi all, time to steer this membership discussion to completion. At last 
> Thursday's board meeting, and in subsequent discussion, it was suggested to 
> frame this as a policy the board can adopt, with an aim to having it finished 
> by next week.
> 
> The draft membership policy doc [1] is getting pretty close, but needs some 
> wordsmithing, a review (re-write?) of the "positive attributes" section, and 
> there are likely a few points yet to discuss.
> 
> I've highlighted a couple:
> are we happy with a 2-tier membership - one that consists of a 
> self-identified cohort of people, with a low barrier to entry, and no 
> particular rights & responsibilities; and one that has a slightly higher 
> threshold (ie nomination & positive attributes), and includes a few rights & 
> responsibilities?
> how do we establish our initial charter membership (or whatever we call it)? 
> board plus 2018 & 2019 conference committees? add people who we know are 
> contributors? canvass for nominations from the community?
> I'll find some time over the next couple of days to do some wordsmithing, if 
> anyone else wishes to help with this, feel free. Comments and discussion 
> encouraged in this thread and in the doc.
> 
> I propose this approximate timeline:
> Sunday 22nd: finish draft
> Monday 23rd: review by our professional advisers to ensure we're not doing 
> anything that is difficult to implement, and to help us understand whether it 
> will require changes to our constitution
> Tuesday 24th: motion to adopt
> Cheers
> John
> 
> [1] 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
>  
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Good points. As always, we need to find a balance between capturing every
detail & what's achievable given limited volunteer time. To some degree I
hope we are all working on mutual trust, and the working in the open helps
establish a foundation for this trust.

*Also, the possibility of a corrupt board has been raised in the comments
> on the document.  If this is a real concern, it may be worth discussing the
> assumption that this should be run like a Westminster style democracy (i.e.
> the board is elected and then does whatever it likes during its term).
> Perhaps there could be procedure for a "recall" or vote of no confidence in
> the board, or for members to challenge a particular action of the board.*
>

I believe (though I'm not a lawyer, nor have I consulted one on this) that
our constitution [1] and the Australian Corporations Act cover member
resolutions and removing directors (see [2]). We could potentially add a
reference to this in our Membership policy, but should avoid adding an
extra layer of process, unless it's necessary.

[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kakpBuOsF6ObF4IiUVSA2PRI3-7Asy7P/view
[2] https://www.pageseager.com.au/a-guide-to-removing-directors/
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Alister Hood]

Thanks John,

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, 1:27 AM John Bryant,  wrote:

> Hey Alister, great comments and thanks for chiming in.
>
> Re: what OSGeo Oceania is likely to do... in the immediate term, continue
> running the FOSS4G SotM Oceania regional conference series. Beyond that, up
> for discussion, but there has been a lot of talk about things like running
> smaller events across the region, supporting local user groups, supporting
> & ecouraging open geospatial contributions, and helping people in Oceania
> get engaged with OSGeo & OSM activities at an international level. I'm sure
> more will come up, once we've graduated from this year of establishing the
> entity :)
>
> Re: bad actors, Andrew Harvey mentioned a situation that unfolded in OSMF
> last year:
>
>> *Recently there was a coordinated effort by one company to mass sign up
>> members to the OSMF which raised some eyebrows:
>> https://openstreetmap.lu/MWGGlobalLogicReport20181226.pdf
>> *
>>
> Hopefully very unlikely to happen to us, but if we can protect ourselves
> from something like it, we should.
>

I was hoping someone might know of organisations where this kind of attack
was actually successful, what happened, and how it was responded to.  In
that case the "attackers" failed not because of anything OSMF did, but
because they got the date wrong.

*If the requirement to be a charter member is simply to participate on an
>> email list, does the two-tier membership really provide any protection?*
>>
> I think this is a good point, and one I agree with. I feel we should have
> some clear criteria for eligibility for voting rights for this reason. They
> don't need to be especially onerous or exclusive, but they should be
> articulated such that they can be practically implemented.
>

>
Other mechanisms? I don't know... but this would be a great time to
> identify them :)
>

I'm inclined to think that for Osgeo Oceania a single-tier membership is
suitable, but implement some of the suggestions put forward in the OSMF
document, and outline a process for dealing with suspect signups.  Perhaps
one or more membership coordinators could be empowered to deal with them,
with a right of appeal to the board, or a vote of existing members.

Also, the possibility of a corrupt board has been raised in the comments on
the document.  If this is a real concern, it may be worth discussing the
assumption that this should be run like a Westminster style democracy (i.e.
the board is elected and then does whatever it likes during its term).
Perhaps there could be procedure for a "recall" or vote of no confidence in
the board, or for members to challenge a particular action of the board.

Regards,
Alister
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Hey Alister, great comments and thanks for chiming in.

Re: what OSGeo Oceania is likely to do... in the immediate term, continue
running the FOSS4G SotM Oceania regional conference series. Beyond that, up
for discussion, but there has been a lot of talk about things like running
smaller events across the region, supporting local user groups, supporting
& ecouraging open geospatial contributions, and helping people in Oceania
get engaged with OSGeo & OSM activities at an international level. I'm sure
more will come up, once we've graduated from this year of establishing the
entity :)

Re: bad actors, Andrew Harvey mentioned a situation that unfolded in OSMF
last year:

> *Recently there was a coordinated effort by one company to mass sign up
> members to the OSMF which raised some eyebrows:
> https://openstreetmap.lu/MWGGlobalLogicReport20181226.pdf
> *
>
Hopefully very unlikely to happen to us, but if we can protect ourselves
from something like it, we should.

*If the requirement to be a charter member is simply to participate on an
> email list, does the two-tier membership really provide any protection?*
>
I think this is a good point, and one I agree with. I feel we should have
some clear criteria for eligibility for voting rights for this reason. They
don't need to be especially onerous or exclusive, but they should be
articulated such that they can be practically implemented.

Other mechanisms? I don't know... but this would be a great time to
identify them :)
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Alister Hood]

Hi everyone, I've been following this from a distance, but I now can't
remember if there was any real discussion of what it might look like
to be hijacked by "bad actors".  Has it happened to similar
organisations?  If the requirement to be a charter member is simply to
participate on an email list, does the two-tier membership really
provide any protection?  Are there other mechanisms that might help
protect against the bad actors?  I'm guessing a mechanism involving
the parent Osgeo is unlikely when we are talking about a local legal
entity...
I confess I'm still not sure I understand what Osgeo Oceania is likely
to actually do, which would affect these questions.

Regards,
Alister

On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 at 21:55, John Bryant  wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot Cameron, Adam, Ed, & Greg (and Anonymous :) ) for extensive 
> review & input.
>
> There are a couple of big questions we need to address (and they're 
> inextricably linked, so let's discuss them in tandem):
>
> 1. Will we have 2 tiers of membership, ie. general and charter?
> The 2 tier idea was proposed as a way to ensure there is a low barrier to 
> entry for all, but that we also have a means of ensuring that voting members 
> meet some basic eligibility guidelines, partly to protect the organisation 
> from bad actors. However, there are legitimate concerns about adding 
> complexity and confusion. The alternative is to have a single type of 
> membership, in which we'd need to balance low barrier and eligibility.
>
> ... which leads to ...
>
> 2. What is our eligibility criteria?
> The threshold was initially proposed as active volunteering, with reference 
> to the OSGeo charter member "positive attributes". After a bit of discussion 
> at last week's board meeting, we agreed to try and re-articulate these for 
> our particular situation. But there are some legitimate concerns that they 
> may be too high a bar. The resolution of the two-tiers question will play 
> into this.
>
> I need some help in resolving these questions, can I get some feedback? What 
> are your thoughts? Board, you'll be asked to pass this once it's complete, 
> what are your thoughts on these questions?
>
> There are also a number of practical considerations being discussed in the 
> draft document [1], these are worth looking at as well.
>
> Thanks
> John
>
> [1] 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Thanks a lot Cameron, Adam, Ed, & Greg (and Anonymous :) ) for extensive
review & input.

There are a couple of big questions we need to address (and they're
inextricably linked, so let's discuss them in tandem):

*1. Will we have 2 tiers of membership, ie. general and charter?*
The 2 tier idea was proposed as a way to ensure there is a low barrier to
entry for all, but that we also have a means of ensuring that voting
members meet some basic eligibility guidelines, partly to protect the
organisation from bad actors. However, there are legitimate concerns about
adding complexity and confusion. The alternative is to have a single type
of membership, in which we'd need to balance low barrier and eligibility.

... which leads to ...

*2. What is our eligibility criteria?*
The threshold was initially proposed as active volunteering, with reference
to the OSGeo charter member "positive attributes". After a bit of
discussion at last week's board meeting, we agreed to try and re-articulate
these for our particular situation. But there are some legitimate concerns
that they may be too high a bar. The resolution of the two-tiers question
will play into this.

I need some help in resolving these questions, can I get some feedback?
What are your thoughts? Board, you'll be asked to pass this once it's
complete, what are your thoughts on these questions?

There are also a number of practical considerations being discussed in the
draft document [1], these are worth looking at as well.

Thanks
John

[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Cameron Shorter]

John,

I've added plenty of comments into the doc. Sorry for the late feedback. 
Answers to questions below:


On 21/9/19 11:31 pm, John Bryant wrote:
OK, we have a near-complete draft of a Membership Policy ready for 
review [1]. Board & community, please have a look and consider whether 
it works for you.


There may still be some question marks around things like:

  * are we happy with the term "charter member"?
  * are we happy with the eligibility criteria?

I suggest reducing barrier to entry to be as little as "contributing to 
an email list".


  * are we happy with the two types of membership?


I think this adds complexity and confusion which I feel will be detrimental.


  * is the 2019 process for an initial membership reasonable and fair?


Yes.


  * does it read well, it is clear,


Yes, great job.


  * and is it practically implementable?


I've listed concerns about adding members.


  * does it cover what it needs to?


Yes.
Please raise any last issues you think need resolving. Meanwhile, I'll 
send it over to our professional advisors for review. If there are no 
outstanding items by Tuesday I'll aim to move it for adoption then.


Cheers
John

[1] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA



___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania


--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

OK, we have a near-complete draft of a Membership Policy ready for review
[1]. Board & community, please have a look and consider whether it works
for you.

There may still be some question marks around things like:

   - are we happy with the term "charter member"?
   - are we happy with the eligibility criteria?
   - are we happy with the two types of membership?
   - is the 2019 process for an initial membership reasonable and fair?
   - does it read well, it is clear, and is it practically implementable?
   - does it cover what it needs to?

Please raise any last issues you think need resolving. Meanwhile, I'll send
it over to our professional advisors for review. If there are no
outstanding items by Tuesday I'll aim to move it for adoption then.

Cheers
John

[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

At the last board meeting, we talked about reviewing the "Positive
Attributes" concept from OSGeo, and re-articulating something along the
same lines for our community. Here's the OSGeo passage, any thoughts?
Comments & suggestions welcome.

Recommended membership selection criteria include:
>
>- Members should believe in the general goals of the Foundation. To
>support and promote the use of free and open source geospatial software,
>education and data in a collaborative manner.
>- Previous participation in or support of OSGeo activities
>- The person should already have made a contribution to free and open
>source geospatial software, education or open data.
>- The person should be willing to put in time and effort on the
>Foundation, perhaps joining committee(s), or volunteering in some other way
>that gets the Foundation going.
>- Members should be prepared to work constructively and positively
>towards the goals of the Foundation. Good teamwork skills are an asset.
>
> Membership nominations should strive to promote diversity:
>
>- Nominate members representing a diversity of geographic regions,
>diversity of projects, diversity of programming languages.
>- Nominate members representing and diversity of interests (e.g.,
>corporate, hobbyist, educational, scientific).
>- Nominate members representing a diversity of humanity including
>gender and race
>
>
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 14:55, John Bryant  wrote:

> Hi all, time to steer this membership discussion to completion. At last
> Thursday's board meeting, and in subsequent discussion, it was suggested to
> frame this as a policy the board can adopt, with an aim to having it
> finished by next week.
>
> The draft membership policy doc [1] is getting pretty close, but needs
> some wordsmithing, a review (re-write?) of the "positive attributes"
> section, and there are likely a few points yet to discuss.
>
> I've highlighted a couple:
>
>- are we happy with a 2-tier membership - one that consists of a
>self-identified cohort of people, with a low barrier to entry, and no
>particular rights & responsibilities; and one that has a slightly higher
>threshold (ie nomination & positive attributes), and includes a few rights
>& responsibilities?
>- how do we establish our initial charter membership (or whatever we
>call it)? board plus 2018 & 2019 conference committees? add people who we
>know are contributors? canvass for nominations from the community?
>
> I'll find some time over the next couple of days to do some wordsmithing,
> if anyone else wishes to help with this, feel free. Comments and discussion
> encouraged in this thread and in the doc.
>
> I propose this approximate timeline:
>
>- Sunday 22nd: finish draft
>- Monday 23rd: review by our professional advisers to ensure we're not
>doing anything that is difficult to implement, and to help us understand
>whether it will require changes to our constitution
>- Tuesday 24th: motion to adopt
>
> Cheers
> John
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Hi all, time to steer this membership discussion to completion. At last
Thursday's board meeting, and in subsequent discussion, it was suggested to
frame this as a policy the board can adopt, with an aim to having it
finished by next week.

The draft membership policy doc [1] is getting pretty close, but needs some
wordsmithing, a review (re-write?) of the "positive attributes" section,
and there are likely a few points yet to discuss.

I've highlighted a couple:

   - are we happy with a 2-tier membership - one that consists of a
   self-identified cohort of people, with a low barrier to entry, and no
   particular rights & responsibilities; and one that has a slightly higher
   threshold (ie nomination & positive attributes), and includes a few rights
   & responsibilities?
   - how do we establish our initial charter membership (or whatever we
   call it)? board plus 2018 & 2019 conference committees? add people who we
   know are contributors? canvass for nominations from the community?

I'll find some time over the next couple of days to do some wordsmithing,
if anyone else wishes to help with this, feel free. Comments and discussion
encouraged in this thread and in the doc.

I propose this approximate timeline:

   - Sunday 22nd: finish draft
   - Monday 23rd: review by our professional advisers to ensure we're not
   doing anything that is difficult to implement, and to help us understand
   whether it will require changes to our constitution
   - Tuesday 24th: motion to adopt

Cheers
John

[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[adam steer]

Hi all

Ed has pretty well summed up my thoughts. My preferred action would be
'vote in an election'.

We can do things like charter membership later...

And +1 to elections outside the AGM.

Thanks all,

Adam

On Mon., 9 Sep. 2019, 13:30 Jonah Sullivan, 
wrote:

> Thanks for taking the time to think about this Ed. I think being inclusive
> is a great idea, but I don't see much benefit of having a large but
> disengaged member pool.
>
> I haven't put any thought into charging membership dues, not sure if it
> would be worth the administrative hassle since the organisation is based
> around the conference.
>
> On Sun, 8 Sep. 2019, 13:54 Edoardo Neerhut,  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Thanks for moving the discussion forward on this important topic.
>>
>> *Membership criteria*
>> Regarding the membership base and how one qualifies, I broadly agree that
>> we need a system that encourages active participation. My only concern is
>> around the idea of "positive attributes". The term itself seems a bit
>> ambiguous and even the selection criteria outlined in the linked OSGeo wiki
>> seem a bit too vague for my liking. I think a system like this is
>> vulnerable to manipulation and not as merit based as we would like.
>>
>> OSMF is at the other end of the spectrum with a membership fee but no
>> responsibilities.
>>
>> As we are in the early days of our community, I think we would benefit
>> greatly from having a more open membership criteria, but with clear
>> obligations once a member, even if this was *simply voting each year*.
>> My worry that a more selective criteria with "positive attributes" might
>> discourage new people from joining and limit future leadership potential.
>>
>> *Timing of the election*
>> Similarly, I agree with John and Cameron that an AGM at the conference
>> followed by an election shortly would allow new people to step up and do so
>> after due consideration. The date of the election should be fixed well in
>> advance so that people consider it seriously at the AGM and conference and
>> initiate any discussions they may want to have regarding the
>> responsibilities of membership and directorship.
>>
>> Also:
>>
>>- As John mentioned, having the election during the conference
>>unfairly disadvantages those unable to attend.
>>- Elections can be both a positive and negative event depending on
>>how they play out. We should reduce the risk of any negative fallout by
>>separating the two events.
>>
>> I'll need to put more thought into the actual running of the election. It
>> might be useful to have someone from OSMF or OSGeo join one of our board
>> meetings and shed light on how they run theirs.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 06:40, John Bryant  wrote:
>>
>>> In the interest of moving this forward, perhaps we can focus on the
>>> membership question for now.
>>>
>>> So far we have a couple of suggestions on the table:
>>>
>>>1. a model somewhat based on OSGeo's charter membership, using
>>>participation and positive attributes as criteria for nomination
>>>2. free membership that requires an action each year to remain a
>>>member, even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial
>>>
>>> Option 1 has featured more heavily in this discussion, am I right to
>>> read that as having general support? Any arguments against? Any other
>>> proposals we should consider?
>>>
>>> If we have general support for option 1, let's start fleshing it out.
>>> I've started a Google doc [1] for collaborative editing, we can move this
>>> to the wiki when it's done. It's open for commenting, if you want to help
>>> edit, please ask for access.
>>>
>>> Board & community input please.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> John
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
>>> ___
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>> ___
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Jonah Sullivan]

Thanks for taking the time to think about this Ed. I think being inclusive
is a great idea, but I don't see much benefit of having a large but
disengaged member pool.

I haven't put any thought into charging membership dues, not sure if it
would be worth the administrative hassle since the organisation is based
around the conference.

On Sun, 8 Sep. 2019, 13:54 Edoardo Neerhut,  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for moving the discussion forward on this important topic.
>
> *Membership criteria*
> Regarding the membership base and how one qualifies, I broadly agree that
> we need a system that encourages active participation. My only concern is
> around the idea of "positive attributes". The term itself seems a bit
> ambiguous and even the selection criteria outlined in the linked OSGeo wiki
> seem a bit too vague for my liking. I think a system like this is
> vulnerable to manipulation and not as merit based as we would like.
>
> OSMF is at the other end of the spectrum with a membership fee but no
> responsibilities.
>
> As we are in the early days of our community, I think we would benefit
> greatly from having a more open membership criteria, but with clear
> obligations once a member, even if this was *simply voting each year*. My
> worry that a more selective criteria with "positive attributes" might
> discourage new people from joining and limit future leadership potential.
>
> *Timing of the election*
> Similarly, I agree with John and Cameron that an AGM at the conference
> followed by an election shortly would allow new people to step up and do so
> after due consideration. The date of the election should be fixed well in
> advance so that people consider it seriously at the AGM and conference and
> initiate any discussions they may want to have regarding the
> responsibilities of membership and directorship.
>
> Also:
>
>- As John mentioned, having the election during the conference
>unfairly disadvantages those unable to attend.
>- Elections can be both a positive and negative event depending on how
>they play out. We should reduce the risk of any negative fallout by
>separating the two events.
>
> I'll need to put more thought into the actual running of the election. It
> might be useful to have someone from OSMF or OSGeo join one of our board
> meetings and shed light on how they run theirs.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 06:40, John Bryant  wrote:
>
>> In the interest of moving this forward, perhaps we can focus on the
>> membership question for now.
>>
>> So far we have a couple of suggestions on the table:
>>
>>1. a model somewhat based on OSGeo's charter membership, using
>>participation and positive attributes as criteria for nomination
>>2. free membership that requires an action each year to remain a
>>member, even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial
>>
>> Option 1 has featured more heavily in this discussion, am I right to read
>> that as having general support? Any arguments against? Any other proposals
>> we should consider?
>>
>> If we have general support for option 1, let's start fleshing it out.
>> I've started a Google doc [1] for collaborative editing, we can move this
>> to the wiki when it's done. It's open for commenting, if you want to help
>> edit, please ask for access.
>>
>> Board & community input please.
>>
>> Cheers
>> John
>>
>> [1]
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
>> ___
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Edoardo Neerhut]

Hi all,

Thanks for moving the discussion forward on this important topic.

*Membership criteria*
Regarding the membership base and how one qualifies, I broadly agree that
we need a system that encourages active participation. My only concern is
around the idea of "positive attributes". The term itself seems a bit
ambiguous and even the selection criteria outlined in the linked OSGeo wiki
seem a bit too vague for my liking. I think a system like this is
vulnerable to manipulation and not as merit based as we would like.

OSMF is at the other end of the spectrum with a membership fee but no
responsibilities.

As we are in the early days of our community, I think we would benefit
greatly from having a more open membership criteria, but with clear
obligations once a member, even if this was *simply voting each year*. My
worry that a more selective criteria with "positive attributes" might
discourage new people from joining and limit future leadership potential.

*Timing of the election*
Similarly, I agree with John and Cameron that an AGM at the conference
followed by an election shortly would allow new people to step up and do so
after due consideration. The date of the election should be fixed well in
advance so that people consider it seriously at the AGM and conference and
initiate any discussions they may want to have regarding the
responsibilities of membership and directorship.

Also:

   - As John mentioned, having the election during the conference unfairly
   disadvantages those unable to attend.
   - Elections can be both a positive and negative event depending on how
   they play out. We should reduce the risk of any negative fallout by
   separating the two events.

I'll need to put more thought into the actual running of the election. It
might be useful to have someone from OSMF or OSGeo join one of our board
meetings and shed light on how they run theirs.

Cheers,

Ed


On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 06:40, John Bryant  wrote:

> In the interest of moving this forward, perhaps we can focus on the
> membership question for now.
>
> So far we have a couple of suggestions on the table:
>
>1. a model somewhat based on OSGeo's charter membership, using
>participation and positive attributes as criteria for nomination
>2. free membership that requires an action each year to remain a
>member, even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial
>
> Option 1 has featured more heavily in this discussion, am I right to read
> that as having general support? Any arguments against? Any other proposals
> we should consider?
>
> If we have general support for option 1, let's start fleshing it out. I've
> started a Google doc [1] for collaborative editing, we can move this to the
> wiki when it's done. It's open for commenting, if you want to help edit,
> please ask for access.
>
> Board & community input please.
>
> Cheers
> John
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

In the interest of moving this forward, perhaps we can focus on the
membership question for now.

So far we have a couple of suggestions on the table:

   1. a model somewhat based on OSGeo's charter membership, using
   participation and positive attributes as criteria for nomination
   2. free membership that requires an action each year to remain a member,
   even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial

Option 1 has featured more heavily in this discussion, am I right to read
that as having general support? Any arguments against? Any other proposals
we should consider?

If we have general support for option 1, let's start fleshing it out. I've
started a Google doc [1] for collaborative editing, we can move this to the
wiki when it's done. It's open for commenting, if you want to help edit,
please ask for access.

Board & community input please.

Cheers
John

[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

*>I think having elections as part of the AGM is a better idea. We can
ensure that we have some kind of system enabled for remote access.*

My strong preference for elections after the AGM, rather than during, is
based on a few things:
- The conference is a great opportunity to inform and engage people, and
capture their imaginations. If we run the election after the conf, we can
use this effect to recruit new candidates. Conversely, if it's at the AGM,
the only candidates may be those who are already aware of OO and know
enough to commit to standing for election, we may have a significantly
smaller pool.
- A live election at the AGM would provide an advantage to candidates who
are physically present. I expect there will be people who can't attend but
would be excellent board members. I'd like these people to have equal
opportunity.
- A live election would provide an advantage to candidates who are
comfortable standing on a stage and selling themselves. I would like to see
people take their time to consider why they want to serve on the board, and
articulate it in writing, and give voting members time to consider and
digest the candidates' positions before voting.
- I don't like the idea of holding the election in the middle of the
conference. To me it feels like an unwelcome distraction from the joy of a
high energy event. Also, changing the board in the middle of the big event
could be awkward and maybe chaotic.

Using the conference and AGM to drive engagement, and running the election
shortly thereafter, will give us a bigger (and arguably better) pool of
potential candidates, and give us the breathing room to focus on the
election properly, at a measured pace.

I also note that OSGeo doesn't run the elections at the AGM, though I don't
know the reason for this.

What are the advantages of having the election at the AGM?
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Cameron Shorter]

On 5/9/19 8:08 pm, Alex Leith wrote:
Perhaps free membership that requires an action each year to remain a 
member, even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial?
I'd be inclined to describe it in moral terms. "Contribute in some 
meaningful way. Contributing to an email discussion is considered 
valuable and meaningful. There are lots of other ways as well."


I'm not sure what the risk of being swamped by bad actors is... is it 
something that has happened to other OSGeo groups?
It hasn't happened to OSGeo. It was considered when OSGeo was setting up 
and drawing on best practices from prior Open Source Foundation 
experiences. I


I think having elections as part of the AGM is a better idea. We can 
ensure that we have some kind of system enabled for remote access.

Fine


And I don't think we need a CRO for the elections, just a sound an 
equitable system that we're pretty good at pulling together usually.

I agree. There are online voting tools which can do a better job than a CRO.

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 20:08, Alex Leith  wrote:

> I'm not sure what the risk of being swamped by bad actors is... is it
> something that has happened to other OSGeo groups?
>

Recently there was a coordinated effort by one company to mass sign up
members to the OSMF which raised some eyebrows:
https://openstreetmap.lu/MWGGlobalLogicReport20181226.pdf
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Alex Leith]

Hi All

Perhaps free membership that requires an action each year to remain a
member, even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial?

I'm not sure what the risk of being swamped by bad actors is... is it
something that has happened to other OSGeo groups?

I think having elections as part of the AGM is a better idea. We can ensure
that we have some kind of system enabled for remote access.

And I don't think we need a CRO for the elections, just a sound an
equitable system that we're pretty good at pulling together usually.

Cheers,

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 12:28, adam steer  wrote:

> HI John
>
> I also like the OSGeo process for charter members, and an ability to prune
> members with a clear minimum participation level, as in anyone who did note
> vote or return an apology is gone. Which might seem pretty harsh, but once
> a year reading some summaries and ticking a box is pretty low bandwidth.
>
> We need to resolve paid membership first - the constitution is ok with
> either free or paid membership. I think the OSGeo system works in part
> because it's free.
>
> By contrast in OSMF, I just paid them money and I can vote. If I stop
> paying, I can’t vote anymore - so it's a different model. And also ok.
>
> I think the first (OSGeo) approach mitigates the risk of being overrun by
> interest groups. If we want to mix that with paid membership, I think we
> will have to get people to nominate themselves as members - so that would
> end with money plus a ‘positive attributes’ qualifier being two bars to
> cross.
>
> I think we need one, or the other - we can’t do both. I prefer membership
> remaining free (like OSGeo), with a clearer boundary around what the
> conditions are (less clear in OSGeo, much more clear for OSMF).
>
> As OSGeo Oceania grows, it’s probably necessary to adjust the constitution
> to have a ’no veto’ approach to voting on board members and new members,
> rather than quotas or numbers. I wonder if that’s possible?
>
> Sorry, bit of an essay - trying to unpack tangled thoughts.
>
> Cheers
>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>


-- 
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[adam steer]

HI John

I also like the OSGeo process for charter members, and an ability to prune
members with a clear minimum participation level, as in anyone who did note
vote or return an apology is gone. Which might seem pretty harsh, but once
a year reading some summaries and ticking a box is pretty low bandwidth.

We need to resolve paid membership first - the constitution is ok with
either free or paid membership. I think the OSGeo system works in part
because it's free.

By contrast in OSMF, I just paid them money and I can vote. If I stop
paying, I can’t vote anymore - so it's a different model. And also ok.

I think the first (OSGeo) approach mitigates the risk of being overrun by
interest groups. If we want to mix that with paid membership, I think we
will have to get people to nominate themselves as members - so that would
end with money plus a ‘positive attributes’ qualifier being two bars to
cross.

I think we need one, or the other - we can’t do both. I prefer membership
remaining free (like OSGeo), with a clearer boundary around what the
conditions are (less clear in OSGeo, much more clear for OSMF).

As OSGeo Oceania grows, it’s probably necessary to adjust the constitution
to have a ’no veto’ approach to voting on board members and new members,
rather than quotas or numbers. I wonder if that’s possible?

Sorry, bit of an essay - trying to unpack tangled thoughts.

Cheers
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Cameron Shorter]

I'm +1 for a membership removal process. (We have/had one for OSGeo, along
the lines of "if you don't vote in elections, then you will be asked if you
want to stay. If you don't want to stay, or you don't response, or you
continue to not vote, then you will be removed").

On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 22:18, John Bryant  wrote:

> Using 'positive attributes' makes sense to me.
>
> *>It only becomes an issue if we set a criteria that x % of members need
> to vote.*
> Typically a public entity's constitution will require quorum for certain
> actions, ours [1] states that we need 20% of membership present to run a
> General Meeting. For this reason, I'm in favour of some kind of (simple)
> mechanism for keeping the list somewhat current.
>
> Alternatively, we could seek to modify our constitution (and this may be
> desirable to make sure it's in accord with our community standards).
>
>
> [1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kakpBuOsF6ObF4IiUVSA2PRI3-7Asy7P/view
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>


-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Using 'positive attributes' makes sense to me.

*>It only becomes an issue if we set a criteria that x % of members need to
vote.*
Typically a public entity's constitution will require quorum for certain
actions, ours [1] states that we need 20% of membership present to run a
General Meeting. For this reason, I'm in favour of some kind of (simple)
mechanism for keeping the list somewhat current.

Alternatively, we could seek to modify our constitution (and this may be
desirable to make sure it's in accord with our community standards).


[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kakpBuOsF6ObF4IiUVSA2PRI3-7Asy7P/view
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Cameron Shorter]

On 4/9/19 6:32 pm, John Bryant wrote:

A couple of questions on this model:

 1. I can see how it works well once established, but how might it
work initially? Would we suggest that interested people ask to be
nominated? Would they need to explain why they should be a member?

Point people at the "Positive attributes" which basically means active 
participation.


https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Membership_Process_2018&redirect=no

If someone is actively participating on a volunteer basis, they are 
almost certainly have the best interests of OSGeo at hand. This should 
be enough criteria to join.



 1. How to keep membership list fresh? Maybe if a member doesn't
fulfill their duties (eg. doesn't vote for 2 or 3 consecutive
years), their membership is suspended?

OSGeo has half heartedly tried to remove inactive people in the past. It 
hasn't worked very well. There are lots of inactive people as OSGeo 
charter members, but that doesn't really matter.


It only becomes an issue if we set a criteria that x % of members need 
to vote.



--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[John Bryant]

Thanks Cameron

*>I think our membership process should be inclusive and easy to join by
anyone interested in OSGeo Oceania, with the one caveat that we should
protect ourselves from being overtaken by being swamped by bad actors.*
+1

*>I suggest starting from the OSGeo charter member process*
I like the OSGeo Charter Member model, as it aims for gradual growth based
on established trust. I'd be a bit concerned that some might feel excluded
if they're not already in established networks, but there could be ways to
mitigate this.

A couple of questions on this model:

   1. I can see how it works well once established, but how might it work
   initially? Would we suggest that interested people ask to be nominated?
   Would they need to explain why they should be a member?
   2. How to keep membership list fresh? Maybe if a member doesn't fulfill
   their duties (eg. doesn't vote for 2 or 3 consecutive years), their
   membership is suspended?
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

Re: [OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Cameron Shorter]

I think our membership process should be inclusive and easy to join by
anyone interested in OSGeo Oceania, with the one caveat that we should
protect ourselves from being overtaken by being swamped by bad actors.

With that in mind, I suggest starting from the OSGeo charter member
process, which aimed to achieve these goals and I think it pretty close to
what we want.
https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Membership_Process_2018&redirect=no

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 13:58, John Bryant  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to kick off a discussion around membership of OSGeo Oceania, and
> how we elect directors to the board. We don't need to rush, but should move
> with purpose, so we can complete our mandate, and an incoming board of
> directors can begin with a solid foundation. Let's aim to get through as
> much of this as we can in the next couple of weeks, to have time to make
> arrangements ahead of the conference rush.
>
> For background, in our Terms of Reference
> ,
> we agreed to get this done in 2019:
>
>- *determine a process for recruiting and managing an appropriate
>general membership*
>- *determine a process for renewal of board membership, including
>accountability to the general membership, and clarify such items as term
>limits and staggering of terms*
>
> I think these are the key questions we need to answer:
>
>1. *Membership*: We need to recruit a membership who will vote on a
>board of directors, and maintain a register of these members. How do we do
>it? What are the rights & obligations of members? Do we charge a small
>annual fee?
>2. *Elections*: When will these be held? How do we run them? Do we
>appoint a CRO?
>
> Regarding timing, I would see us holding our AGM at the conference, but
> holding elections in the weeks following. I previously thought it might
> make sense to have the elections at the AGM, but on reflection I realise
> that would exclude people who aren't attending the conference from
> participating, and we should be looking to the wider community.
>
> We have some financial support from OSGeo for seeking professional
> advice/assistance, so let's consider what questions we need answered by the
> pros. We may need to look at updating our constitution and our Terms of
> Reference.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers
> John
>
> ___
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>


-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254
___
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania