<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks all for your feedback, comments inline:<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/06/2014 11:33 pm, Seven (aka
Arnulf) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:539C4F1B.7090304@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Even,
thanks for the suggestions which I support (due to the short time
frame before going "public" I refrained from editing the Wiki in case
that the suggestions would in the eyes of the authors change the
content too strongly).
Board,
my proposal would have been different but I actually like this one
even better, well done.
We maybe want to tone down "bad blood" into "dissension" or something
less martial. So far no blood was shed during the process afaik. :-)
(I know this is a proper English term but for us less English native
speakers it does have a fierce tone to it).</pre>
</blockquote>
Nice recommendation. Text now: "This typically results in
unnecessary disappointment and dissent."<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:539C4F1B.7090304@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I like the implicitness of having to *do* something real for OSGeo in
order to become a Charter Member. But it will make it more difficult
if not impossible for people in non-organizationally recognized
positions to become a member. There are probably many out there who
work in projects which are "just" labs-status, in incubation, on the
fringes of our core software development - but they are still highly
valuable supporters of OSGeo. Maybe adding a phrase that we still
encourage everybody to join/apply/get nominated regardless of their
institutional tie-ins would make it feel more inclusive.</pre>
</blockquote>
Good suggestion.<br>
Reworded to:<br>
<br>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<i>The aim is to automatically accept recognised OSGeo community
leaders, while continuing with our existing process which attracts
the many valuable community members who contribute in other ways.</i><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:539C4F1B.7090304@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Thanks,
Arnulf
On 06/14/2014 08:36 PM, Even Rouault wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Le samedi 14 juin 2014 13:42:17, Cameron Shorter a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">OSGeo board, Jorge, I've updated the proposed voting process
docs. Feel free to review and add comments. I intend to email
osgeo-discuss in ~ 9 hours.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Cameron,
A few remarks below
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Key changes:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014#Revised_selection_process">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014#Revised_selection_process</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">*Revised selection process**
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">* In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been
a little contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations
from
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Shouldn't that be "for" rather than "from" in that context ?</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
No, that was my intent.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:539C4F1B.7090304@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">high caliber members of our community, and insufficient positions
to accept them all. This typically results in unnecessary
disappointment and bad blood.
In response, the OSGeo board has agreed to trial tweaking the
voting process. The aim is to automatically accept recognised
OSGeo community leaders.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I've not a strong opinion about this, and I believe that this is
not what is intended, but I'm wondering if some would not feel that
the are two kinds of Charter members : the ones who don't need to
be elected, and the ones that do. Perhaps an explicit message
stating that "whatever the way they got in, all Charter members are
equal" could alleviate this.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
Good point, hopefully now covered by:<br>
<i>The aim is to automatically accept recognised OSGeo community
leaders, while continuing with our existing process which attracts
the many valuable community members who contribute in other ways.</i><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:539C4F1B.7090304@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">A week's provided to all community comments.
Design guidelines: * We want a process which is simple to
understand and implement * We want a process which encourages
recognised OSGeo community leaders to become OSGeo charter
members * We want a process which is difficult to abuse * For the
first iteration, we should err on being more selective in our
criteria, with potential widening of selection criteria in future
years.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process_2014#Positions_for_recognised">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process_2014#Positions_for_recognised</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_OSGeo_Community_Leaders
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
*Positions for recognised OSGeo Community Leaders*
OSGeo aims to provide OSGeo Charter Membership to all recognised
OSGeo community leaders who apply.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
"who apply": reading this, I would understand that those community
leaders should apply themselves, instead of being nominated. Which
is contradicted by the last sentence of your proposal. So perhaps
replace with "who are nominated"</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Updated as suggested.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:539C4F1B.7090304@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hopefully, sufficient positions are available. If there are more
candidates than available, then membership will be allocated to
the first to apply. Remaining nominees will be automatically
offered to go through the standard voting process.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I'd say that the sits for the OSGeo community leaders should be
extended to accomodate as many as nominated ones, otherwise it
could cause some frustrations for the late nominees, as the timing
criterion is rather arbitrary.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Good idea, but we are bound by our OSGeo charter to limit the number
of charter members we accept, so I can't see how we can change this
in a better way.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/06/2014 4:08 am, Jorge Sanz
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGw=ncv5HtFCQr960mLHD5H-DZvnyRF52orEJBroVOAr5f+CAQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Hi all,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've updated the Membership process 2014[1] and the
Electronic Voting[2] wiki pages with details about the election
procedure and the LimeSurvey system.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process_2014">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process_2014</a></div>
<div>[2] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Electronic_Voting">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Electronic_Voting</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Some comments on my own:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- We should state that if all the community leader seats are
not filled, they will be available to regular nominees to
complete the reverse case already documented.</div>
</blockquote>
Good idea. I've added this section:<br>
<br>
<b><i>Charter Member positions available</i></b><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>The number of new charter members will be between 10% and one
third of the existing charter membership count, with 50% allocated
for recognised OSGeo Community Leaders, and 50% available for
other candidates. Positions not filled by Community Leaders will
become available for other members. The number of positions
available will be recommended by the CRO, and confirmed by the
board. Read more about the charter membership role ...</i><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGw=ncv5HtFCQr960mLHD5H-DZvnyRF52orEJBroVOAr5f+CAQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- On a tie for two or more nominees, I would prefer to avoid
a random process resolution and just accept all of them. Well
I'm the CRO so it's normal that I don't want to be on that
position, but anyway I think it makes no sense to let a random
process to discard one or more nominated individuals.</div>
</blockquote>
Good idea to address tie breakers. I've added this section:<br>
<br>
<b><i>Resolving tied votes</i></b><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>A nominee who receives no votes shall not be offered a
position. (This is unlikely to happen, as you would expect at
least one vote from the person who nominated the candidate).</i><i><br>
</i><i>In the case of a tied vote for final charter member
positions:</i><i><br>
</i><i>* If there are sufficient positions available, as per OSGeo
charter, then all tied nominees will all be accepted.</i><i><br>
</i><i>* If there are insufficient positions, then the CRO's vote
will count as 1.5 times a normal vote, in order to resolve the tie
break.</i><i><br>
</i><i>In the case of a tied vote for board member positions:</i><i><br>
</i><i>* The CRO's vote will count as 1.5 times a normal vote, in
order to resolve the tie break.</i><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGw=ncv5HtFCQr960mLHD5H-DZvnyRF52orEJBroVOAr5f+CAQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- I agree with Even about stating clearly that two ways to
accept new Charter Members doesn't implies any difference
afterwards.</div>
</blockquote>
Updated as above.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGw=ncv5HtFCQr960mLHD5H-DZvnyRF52orEJBroVOAr5f+CAQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thinking on Arnulf last comment, I wonder if we should
increase the number of positions. On the last meeting we decided
20 (10+10) but maybe 10 seats for non community leaders is quite
restrictive if you think on all good people on Local Chapters
that are not coders or simply project focused, but working on
education, outreach, etc.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Last year we had 37 new Charter Members, how many of them fit
on the "community leaders" category? not so many. Thinking
aloud, maybe we can just accept all the community leaders, and
then restrict the regular voting process to the remaining up to
the third. So if we have 20 leaders in, then we have 34 seats to
offer to the voting process (54 is a third of our current CM
list).<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
According to <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.osgeo.org/charter_members">http://www.osgeo.org/charter_members</a>, we have 181
charter members. 1/3 would be 60 positions rather than 54? (Or have
some retired?)<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGw=ncv5HtFCQr960mLHD5H-DZvnyRF52orEJBroVOAr5f+CAQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My own vision is to have as many CM as possible, so probably
no election would be needed as we Increase every year our
people, but I understand that others would agree on a membership
that is harder to get and that an election is healthy to a
community and wouldn't discourage to people to participate if
they don't get it on the first try. Another very different topic
is adding meaning to being a member, but that's a discussion
probably better after the summer :-)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Noting that we had 37 new candidates last year, I suggest we
allocate 40 positions, possibly a few more to resolve tie beaks. 20
positions to be reserved for recognised OSGeo community leaders.<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F +61 2 9009 5099</pre>
</body>
</html>