[Board] Added "OSGeo Charter Responsibilities"

[Venkatesh Raghavan]

glad to see all the feedback and suggestions.
I agree with view expressed by Jeff and Jorge.
I think, as Jorge said, now that the 2014 CM
elections (brilliantly managed by Jorge) have provided
us with some numbers, the election process needs
to be revisited and improved by the new board in
consultation with the Charter Membership of the Foundation.

Venka

On 2014/08/19 2:41, Jorge Sanz wrote:
> 2014-08-18 15:46 GMT+02:00 Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>:
>> Hi Venka,
>>
>> I too have several thoughts on the Charter Member election process from this
>> year, I just wasn't sure if I should wait to explain them until after the
>> Board election, or in person in Portland to the tribe, at the AGM there,
>> or....   but anyway you have brought up good points and I will respond.
>>
>> Jorge did amazing work on setting up an electronic voting system, that
>> obviously we will use from now on.  Thanks so much to Jorge for being the
>> champion.
>>
>> What I noticed in this year's Charter Member election was that:
>>
>> - we had some very poor nominations (maybe a one sentence intro, and no link
>> to an OSGeo wiki page for addition info)
>>
>> - the new rules to be accepted of "more YES votes than NO votes, as well as
>> greater than 5% of charter members who voted" (which I can't even find on
>> our Elections wiki page now, I had to find the initial email), from looking
>> at the results did in fact lower the bar too low (every nomination, poor to
>> good, was accepted).
>>
>> I think we tried to improve the selection process, but we made it a little
>> too easy to become a Charter Member.  I wonder, if that "5%" number was
>> changed to something like "51%", how our results would have been this year?
>> I am not sure, but I do wonder.
>>
>> I am very appreciative of having 64 new Charter Members this year, for an
>> amazing pool of 244 Charter Members now in total.  But I think the community
>> should work with the CRO and the OSGeo Board to tweak this new process for
>> the 2015 Charter Member election.
>>
>> -jeff
>>
> Some comments
>
> - The updated criteria for election of CM is documented on the
> Membership Process wiki page[1], linked on the elections page. That
> page was updated by myself and Cameron *before* the nominations period
> started.
>
> - Regarding the 5%, or just the criteria on support, it was rised by
> Angelos during the request for comments done by Cameron[2] and (I
> suppose) Cameron placed a low limit for inclusiveness.
>
> - After the elections results, I agree that limit it's too low and it
> would be really hard for a candidate to not get it. Charter Members
> should have a higher level of support to be accepted.
>
> - As CRO, for the records, and hoping that those numbers are
> meaningful and help to improve the criteria, let me share some basic
> statistics regarding support, that is: yes/(yes+no+abs):
>
> -- Maximum: 84%
> -- Minimum: 39%
> -- Average: 56%
> -- Number of candidates with more than 51%: 45 of 64
>
> Anyway it's the first time we have those numbers easy at hand. For the
> next elections we can refine some details on the voting and nomination
> process like making a better statement about what a good nomination
> is, some tips to help charter members to make an opinion about a
> candidate, decide a higher level of support requested, etc.
>
> Best regards
>
> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process
> [2] http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Proposed-process-for-selecting-OSGeo-charter-members-tp5145917p5148688.html
>
>