<div dir="ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>although I am all in favor of an inclusive community, I see a point in the proposal of thresholding. Currently, as a voting charter member, when I'm presented with a candidate, I have the opportunity to include (YES) or exclude (NO) him/her , and this makes sense when I know him/her and their work. What if I don't have idea? I would abstain. Particularly, what might be the reasons that might lead me to say NO to this candidate? I would say it should be a good reason. </div><div>I don't remember very well the conditions given last year for the voting procedure, but I propose to give 3 opportunities for voting each candidate: YES (+1) , NO (-1) or ABSTAIN (0). </div><div>This makes me think that if a considerable amount of people is voting a decided NO, there should be a reason why the candidate should not be awarded as a charter member and the reason isn't the fact that he/she is not popular enough (remember, if you don't know him/her, you can just abstain).</div><div><br></div><div>My 2 cents</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Cameron Shorter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" target="_blank">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Venka,<br>
As Peter notes, the minimum 5% YES votes was discussed amongst the community (along with extensive discussion about many other aspects of the proposal).<br>
Here is one of the emails in the thread:<br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-July/013049.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-July/013049.html</a><br>
<br>
Hi Jeff,<br>
I'd prefer not to have it implied that the 5% figure was "an error". It was the final result of extensive community discussion. If you wish to continue with changing this 5% threshold, then I request it be taken to the OSGeo Discuss list first.<br>
<br>
Warm regards, Cameron<span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
On 20/06/2015 9:45 pm, Jeff McKenna wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
That said, the vote for changing the election process will proceed; I appreciate Cameron's concerns, but, that 5% threshold was an error made last year and the Board is now correcting an unfortunate error. As I mentioned in my elections-kickoff message to the Board on 25 May, what we saw last year for the first time was strategic nominations placed by some people and we will correct that this year. I am sorry for being direct here. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br></span><div><div class="h5">
On 21/06/2015 5:52 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi all,<br>
<br>
in fact, I do remember quite involved discussions around the whole procedure,<br>
where the 5% were only one facet. There were arguments like "an applicant might<br>
be disappointed when not elected, so let us put the barrier low". My view:<br>
democracry is not about giving posts to everybody for avoiding "disappointment",<br>
but to establish a leadership accepted by a majority (sic).<br>
<br>
And I am concerned that a procedure seen as debatable by several members<br>
(including me, BTW) should now be pursued further without an opportunity for<br>
reconsideration. Obviously there is at the very least a need to find out whether<br>
there is room for improvement.<br>
<br>
-Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
On 06/21/15 09:44, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The issue of setting the selection criteria at 5% was discussed<br>
after the last years Charter member elections [1].<br>
<br>
There was no community discussion when the criteria was changed<br>
to a threshold of 5%. So I do not see the logic in calling for a community<br>
discussion now<br>
on a matter in which the the community was never consulted, despite the fact that<br>
some of us expressed our apprehensions about lowering the threshold.<br>
<br>
Venka<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2014-August/012016.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2014-August/012016.html</a><br>
<br>
On 2015/06/21 2:21, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I get Cameron's point of view. Personally, I really don't want to leave<br>
valuable people "outside" just because they are not "popular" enough or<br>
because they not recommended to the charter members by a popular figure.<br>
Myself, I'm not from on a country with notably contributions in term of code<br>
to the FOSS4G realm. I do really know that passion for FOSS4G is not always<br>
enough to make a person noticeable in the eyes of the community (especially<br>
if you are not a programmer). On the other hand, why do we call the process<br>
"elections" if we always accept all the nominations? We really need to have<br>
some kind of mechanism to assure that "proper" people are elected as charter<br>
members, people that really understand and share the values promoted by<br>
OSGeo. If the mechanism is right, all the "good" people will get elected<br>
(most probably, all people proposed). Of course, there is no easy path to<br>
achieve this. I agree that changing the rules of engagement just before the<br>
elections is not the best approach. But, I also recall that, since the board<br>
meeting in Portland, the 5% rule was contested by an important number of<br>
board and charter members (not always on public channels). My proposal is to<br>
delay a bit the elections schedule for this year (not sure if bylaws permit<br>
this) or shorten the nomination/voting periods in order to have a real<br>
consultation on the topic with the OSGeo community. Postponing the rule<br>
amendment for an entire year may find us in the very same situation one year<br>
latter in 2016 (as Jeff already mentioned, nobody had nothing to reply to his<br>
message from May). I encourage all the board/charter members to express their<br>
opinion on this subject. If you do care, please talk now.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Vasile<br>
<br>
On 6/20/15 1:59 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
OSGeo board,<br>
As an OSGeo Charter member, I request that the following motion (see<br>
below) not be passed without first discussing publicly on the OSGeo<br>
Discuss email list.<br>
<br>
The current process for joining OSGeo Charter Membership [2] was<br>
specifically refined to be more inclusive than before, in order to make<br>
it easy for all passionate people within the OSGeo community to join,<br>
while aiming to protect against the now relatively unlikely possibility<br>
of a hostile takeover.<br>
<br>
Based on the proposal below, 11 out of 64 of last years successful<br>
nominations would be rejected under the proposed new rules. I suggest<br>
this is not in OSGeo's interests.<br>
<br>
It is possible that some of these 11 people are not very involved in<br>
OSGeo, and maybe haven't contributed much since being nominated, but is<br>
that a bad thing? Have any of these 11 people been actively detrimental<br>
to OSGeo while being an OSGeo Charter member? Note, the only official<br>
duty of a charter member is to vote for the board. However, being<br>
recognised as a charter member is useful for many of our members looking<br>
to gain OSGeo credibility, such as when presenting at conferences.<br>
<br>
If we are more inclusive, and add 10 new non-active/non-disruptive OSGeo<br>
Charter members, then I'd argue that it is worth it for the 1 passionate<br>
Charter member we also gain.<br>
<br>
I remember a quote from Jeff which rang true with me, and which I think<br>
is applicable here:<br>
/<br>
//"I once heard an interview with a legendary lead singer of a band, who<br>
said his goal each concert was to make the kid sitting in the very back<br>
row to feel like he's as much a part of the concert as the kid sitting<br>
in the front row, and this is exactly how I focus my community work for<br>
OSGeo."/<br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-August/013498.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-August/013498.html</a><br>
<br>
Warm regards, Cameron Shorter<br>
<br>
On 20/06/2015 5:29 am, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear all,<br>
<br>
Please also vote for motion below.<br>
<br>
5) For the new charter members elections, change the threshold of<br>
required YES votes of charter members from 5% to 50%. See Jeff's<br>
e-mail [1] for detailed explanations and the rationale of this change.<br>
If needed, also check the Membership Process [2].<br>
<br>
My vote is +1.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Vasile<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-May/012863.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-May/012863.html</a><br>
[2] <a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
On 26/05/2015 2:18 am, Jeff McKenna wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
3. Decide on 2015 Selection Process<br>
-----------------------------------<br>
<br>
To refresh everyone's memory, last year we (Board) modified the<br>
selection process[3] for Charter members; but in my opinion we made a<br>
mistake with the voting change of "Each candidate with more YES votes<br>
than NO votes, and greater than 5% of voting charter members voting<br>
YES for them, will be included as new charter members."<br>
<br>
What I saw was, for the first time in OSGeo history, strategic<br>
nominations by certain projects, for relatively unknown community<br>
members; the result was that all 64 nominations were accepted as<br>
Charter members.<br>
<br>
For 2015, I am proposing we make 1 change, instead of the 5%<br>
acceptance, change that to 50% or greater voting YES. Such as:<br>
<br>
***<br>
Each candidate with more YES votes than NO votes, and greater than or<br>
equal to 50% of voting charter members voting YES for them, will be<br>
included as new charter members.<br>
***<br>
<br>
I have checked the 2014 results again, and with those new 50% rules,<br>
we would have accepted 45 nominations versus all 64 nominations. I<br>
believe this is much better.<br>
<br>
But of course this needs to be decided by the Board and community. I<br>
am merely kicking off the process So please speak your mind, or edit<br>
the 2015 Elections wiki directly.<br>
<br>
Yours,<br>
<br>
-jeff<br>
</blockquote>
-- <br>
Cameron Shorter,<br>
Software and Data Solutions Manager<br>
LISAsoft<br>
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,<br>
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009<br>
<br>
P <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000</a>, <a href="http://Wwww.lisasoft.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Wwww.lisasoft.com</a>, F <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
Board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
-- <br>
Cameron Shorter,<br>
Software and Data Solutions Manager<br>
LISAsoft<br>
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,<br>
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009<br>
<br></div></div>
P <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000</a>, W <a href="http://www.lisasoft.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099</a><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#666666">Best regards,</font></div><div><font color="#666666"><br></font></div><div><font color="#666666">Dr. Margherita DI LEO </font></div><div><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:arial;font-size:small">Scientific / technical project officer</span><br></div><div><font color="#666666"><br></font></div><div><font color="#666666">European Commission - DG JRC </font></div><div><font color="#666666">Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES)</font></div><div><font color="#666666">Via Fermi, 2749</font></div><div><font color="#666666">I-21027 Ispra (VA) - Italy - TP 261</font></div><div><font color="#666666"> </font></div><div><font color="#666666">Tel. +39 0332 78 3600 </font></div><div><font color="#666666"><a href="mailto:margherita.di-leo@jrc.ec.europa.eu" target="_blank">margherita.di-leo@jrc.ec.europa.eu</a></font></div><div><font color="#666666"><br></font></div><div><font color="#666666">Disclaimer: The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstance be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.</font></div></div></div>
</div>