[OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections

Jeff McKenna jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Wed Jul 1 10:11:57 PDT 2015 

Hi Vasile, Arnulf, all,

Thank you Vasile for this very thorough report.  Several people were 
wondering the past history of our voting process, and your report 
clearly outlines all of the changes throughout the years.

With respect to timing, the time for any change is now (would someone 
start this process like I did in May this year, next year even earlier 
than May?  Likely not, as you see there in this report, this is a hot 
topic each year at the last minute, and few have the passion to lead 
such a change).

So, instead of hearing the usual vocal members voice their opinions, 
let's use the electronic voting system to ask our charter members!

By the way, I just went back and looked at the election history, the 
wiki page history of each of our election years: most election pages 
started in July.  Think of this year, started in May, as a great chance 
to finally change whatever is needed, and poll the charter members.

Regarding changing from an open OSGeo membership (nothing at the 
moment), to charging a membership fee, I am in fact for continuing as an 
open/free organization.  I do however see some issues with our old 
bylaws, and Arnulf mentioned our USA-based status, and there has been 
recent talk again of a registered satellite organization such as through 
an OSGeo Europe.  (this will likely be discussed more in Como)

But we can poll all of the charter members, and let their strong voice 
speak.  That is a great plan.

By the way, let's be proud of OSGeo and for FOSS4G.  Our world-wide 
passion for open helps people share geo information easily.

(maybe I am filled with positive emotion today because it is my county's 
national holiday to celebrate, Canada Day!)

Happy Canada Day everyone!!!! :)

Yours,

-jeff




On 2015-06-29 10:08 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> First of all, please accept my apologies for the delay in sending this
> message to you and, again, apologies for the length of the message.
>
> Let's start with some basic information about the charter member
> elections followed by a little bit of history. I know that many of you
> already know the details but the community is quite large now and I find
> this recap useful.
>
> OSGeo charter members [1] are the blood of our foundation. They are
> voted into this category by the other charter members. They have the
> right to vote in elections for other charter members and for board
> members. They are required to act in accordance with the goals and
> bylaws [2] of the Foundation and have the following responsibilities:
> (1) annually vote for OSGeo Board members; (2) annually vote for new
> OSGeo Charter members and (3) be aware of and protect against a hostile
> takeover of OSGeo.
>
> Each year new charter members are nominated (nomination process is open
> for the entire community, not only to the existing charter members) and
> elected by existing OSGeo charter members, in a process supervised by
> the board [3] and operated by the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) [4].
> Non-active members can retire or be removed by board decision. An
> updated list with all the current and past charter members is available
> on OSGEo website [5]. During the years the charter members selection
> procedure suffered minor and major changes as you can see bellow.
>
> OSGeo was created in early 2006 [7]. One of the main outcomes of the
> first OSGeo meeting (held in Chicago) [7] was a list of 21 foundation
> voting members (most of them high profile figures of the existing FOSS4G
> projects) and 5 interim directors [8]. Later that month, the first real
> elections started with a public nomination call [9] followed by a vote
> [10] and the election of new 24 voting members [11]. This was followed
> by a new nomination call [12] for the remaining four open seats in the
> board. After a tight vote, the first four candidates [13] from a list of
> eight [14] join the board.
>
> In June, after a f2f meeting, the new board redefined the OSGeo
> membership categories as we know today [15]. The voting members are now
> called "Charter Members" and they have the right to vote in elections
> for other charter members, and for board members. The other member
> categories (participant & members) have the right to nominate charter
> board members but they cannot cast votes. In March 2007, with the
> approach of the new charter members elections, discussion started about
> the ned for a CRO position, the number of new seats (and by who/how the
> number is decided) and the voting procedure (e.g. nomination and voting
> period extend, right to designate a proxy, the number of votes each
> charter member can submit) [16]. In June 2007 the nomination process
> [17] started with the aim to elect 15 charter members (the number was
> arbitrarily selected by the board). During the vote [18], each charter
> member was entitled to cast votes up to 15 names from the nomination
> list. It was possible to cast more than one vote to the same nominee
> (even all 15 votes).
>
> The same voting procedure was used for the 2008 charter member elections
> (including the number of seats, 15) [19]. However, the nomination list
> included 18 great names [20] and people start asking to accept all the
> names. Again, the method to pick the number of open seats was questioned
> again. Some people ask not to change the rules during the game and to
> select only 15 names. And 15th it was. Ironically, "there was a four-way
> tie for last place. So, the 15th person on the list was selected by a
> random process." [21].
>
> In 2009 the elections [22] followed the same rules but the number of
> seats was raised to 30. Though, as before, the charter members were able
> to cast only 15 votes. All nominated members [23] were elected as the
> number was bellow 30.
>
> 2010 [24], brought an important change. Due to lack of time for proper
> organization, it was decided to switch the election order and elect the
> charter members after the board elections. This way, the new charter
> members were not able to vote in the same year were elected. Also, the
> board decided, in a f2f meeting, to "add 10% of existing members each
> year - 10 new members this year." [25]. The charter member were able to
> cast a maximum of 10 votes using the same rules as before. However, a
> number of voices noted that the list of nominee [26] had many great
> names and it was a pity to cut down to only 10. Some suggested that is
> time to make some changes in the charter member selection procedure
> (e.g. [27]).
>
> In 2011 [28] the elections order remain the same as in 2010. The board
> agreed on opening 20 seats (20% - [29]). Each member were able to cast a
> maximum of 20 votes using the same rules as before. In the end, 21
> members were elected (all nominees [30]) as it was a tie for the 20th
> slot and that still fits within the limits of 20% new charter members
> set by the board. The voting participating rate was 65% and some voices
> ask about the charter member retirement procedure.
>
> In 2012 [31] the election schedule return to the initial order: first
> charter member and then board. 20 seats were open and the board decided
> to accept all 22 nominations [32] as it was inline with OSGeo bylaws (is
> possible to add between 10% and one third of the existing charter
> membership).
>
> 2013 [33] elections followed the 2012 scenario. 30 seats open. 37
> nominations received [34]. The board decided to accept all the nominations.
>
> 2014 [35], the year of the change for OSGeo charter member elections.
> First big change was the implementation of an electronic voting system
> [36] to replace the e-mail voting. The selection process itself was also
> revised from the bottom. Each charter member received an email with a
> personalized url to access the electronic voting system. Each charter
> member can vote with Yes/No/Abstain for all nominated charter members.
> Each candidate with more YES votes than NO votes, and greater than 5% of
> voting charter members voting YES for them, were included as new charter
> members. The result was that all 64 nominations [37] were accepted as
> Charter members. For the first time, the board decided to publish the
> elections results on the internet with detail numbers of YES/NO/ABSTAIN
> for each nominee [38]. Some concerns were raised about the low threshold
> of voting charter members voting YES for a nominee.
>
> Now we are getting to the current year. In 2015 [39], the elections will
> follow the same pattern: charter members and then board members. For the
> charter members elections, the OSGeo president, Jeff McKenna, propose to
> change the the above mentioned threshold from 5% to 50% [40]. Jeff did a
> simulation on the last year votes with the new threshold and discovered
> that 45 nominations would be accepted, versus all 64 nominations. The
> item was briefly introduced during the board meeting held in June [41].
> Due to the lack of time, no detailed discussions or vote follow [42].
> However, a motion on the item was introduced to the board via e-mail
> [43]. The board was not able to reach an consensus with six votes to
> approve, one abstain and two to reject the motion. Some other charter
> members join the discussion but also with split opinions. Some are pro
> for a more exclusive charter membership and some are for a easy way to
> join. A consultation with the entire community was demanded. For more
> details see thread "[Board] motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo
> Charter membership more exclusive" on the board mailing list [44]. The
> thread expanded on the OSGeo-discuss mailing list and more concerns were
> raised. Like: the YES/NO/Abstain options should be better explained to
> the charter members; ask the charter members to vote on the threshold;
> the algorithm to measure the support for a nominee should be modified as
> Abstain votes are counted right now as No votes. The "YES / (NO + YES) =
> percentage support" [45] and "(YES-NO) / (YES+NO+ABSTAIN) = percentage
> support" [46] formulas were suggested; Arnulf suggested that "charter
> member" term was misused by OSGeo in the past and the foundation should
> embrace a regular membership mechanism and even ask for a low annual
> membership fee [47].
>
> I hope I did not make any mistakes and also did not left important
> information outside this recap. I so, please correct/add points. Charter
> member elections process is vital to OSGeo, therefore we should proceed
> further with great care. The time is also not on our side as we need to
> do this before the board elections. Until now we have the following
> options:
>
> a. Go with the unmodified 2014 selection process;
> b. Change the threshold percent;
> c. Change the algorithm that measure the support for a nominee;
> d. Change both b and c;
> e. Change the selection process from the ground (e.g. move to regular
> membership);
> e. Other options not expressed until now.
>
> Please take some time, think about the existing voting system and if/how
> should be improved, and express your opinion here. Thanks to the
> electronic voting system we can put your options into a survey and all
> vote for the best solution.
>
> Warm regards from sunny Bucharest,
> Vasile
> (your 2015 CRO)
>
> P.S. Two personal notes after I did some research about the
> selection/voting process in other open source software organizations: 1)
> all of them seem to have difficulties in finding the best solution
> (apparently such solution does not exist); 2) OSGeo is a very
> transparent organization.
>
> [1] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership
> [2] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
> [3] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process
> [4] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Chief_Returning_Officer
> [5] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/members/voting_members.html
> [6]
> http://www.osgeo.org/content/news/news_archive/open_source_geospatial_foundation_initial_press_release.html.html
>
> [7]
> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/meetings/2006_02_04/meeting.html
> [8] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Charter_Members
> [9] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-February/000008.html
> [10] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-February/000073.html
> [11] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000132.html
> [12] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000167.html
> [13] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000314.html
> [14] http://www.osgeo.org/content/news/news_archive/board_nom_20060314.html
> [15] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership
> [16] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-March/001558.html
> [17] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-May/001964.html
> [18] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-June/002003.html
> [19] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2008
> [20] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2008
> [21] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2008-June/003789.html
> [22] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2009
> [23] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2009
> [24] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2010
> [25]
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meeting_Barcelona_2010#Meeting_Minutes
>
> [26] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2010
> [27] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2010-November/008312.html
> [28] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2011
> [29] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meeting_Denver_2011#Minutes
> [30] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2011
> [31] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2012
> [32] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2012
> [33] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2013
> [34] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2013
> [35] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014
> [36] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Electronic_Voting
> [37] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2014
> [38] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014_detailed_results
> [39] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2015
> [40] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-May/012863.html
> [41] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2015
> [42] http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2014-09-13.log
> [43] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012912.html
> [44] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/thread.html
> [45] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012945.html
> [46] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012946.html
> [47] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-June/014374.html
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

More information about the Discuss mailing list