[OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Fri Jul 3 13:59:30 PDT 2015
Hi Maxi and Eli,
I like Maxi's clarification of charter member involvement. I see
similarities with:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Suggested_involvement_from_board_members
(I found this list, originally started by Arnulf, to be very useful when
I was considering involvement with the board)
In discussing OSGeo Roles, I'd suggest also mentioning OSGeo Advocates:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate
"OSGeo Advocates are authoritative OSGeo personalities who have
volunteered to talk on behalf of the OSGeo foundation." Anyone can add
themselves.
When calling for OSGeo Charter members, I suggest we should also invite
people to update their OSGeo Advocate profile, or add themselves if not
already listed.
Cheers, Cameron
On 3/07/2015 5:47 pm, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:
> Thanks Eli,
> I agree with you about the distinction between "Participants" and
> "Members".
>
> While participants are those that are working with open source
> technologies in the geospatial field (I know many people that don't
> care of OSGeo but follow many list of open source projects or topics
> because this is the only thing what they look at) members are thos
> that take care of OSGeo as a fundation and of its ultimate goals
> (disseminate, build, guarante, etc.).
>
> It is to me like "users" and "committers" of a software project.
>
>
> So the point is what is the role of a member?
> _Again in my opinion_, it should be:
>
> DUTIES:
> * abide the OSGeo code of conduct
> * support OSGeo goals
> * vote when is required
> * ....
>
> RIGHTS
> * vote for the Board
> * vote for any referendum
> * propose new members
> * ....
>
> RULES
> * removed from member if not voted for 3 consecutive time
> * removed from member if a severe infringement of CoC is detected
> * can propose 1 new member a year with 5 support letters of other
> members (no voting procedure but only verification from a committee to
> avoid takeover actions
> * ...
>
> And so on....
>
>
> Maxi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015-07-03 8:28 GMT+02:00 Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
> <mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>>:
>
> Vasile,
>
> Great work pulling this together.
>
> We keep calling this discussion things like "Charter member elections"
> and addressing it during election periods. I think that topic is
> really something else, "the nature and types of OSGeo Membership" or
> something similar.
>
> If we evaluate our existing structure [1], I think that we can regard
> "Participants" as a resounding success (there are 10,000+ involved on
> the email lists, projects, events, etc). Just as the "Participants"
> are a success, I think that "Members" are a near complete failure [52]
> [53] in their current form, I think that "Charter Members" are working
> well enough in that they seem to be achieving their purpose of being
> people dedicated to the OSGeo Mission, electing the Board and Charter
> members, and preventing the unlikely scenario of a takeover. Charter
> membership seems to be fraught with all sorts of additional
> connotation, confusion, differring perspectives, and debate. Based on
> this, I think that OSGeo should further our success with
> "participants", end "membership" since it failed, and refine "Charter"
> so that is works better.
>
> What OSGeo membership and Charter membership has been unclear to many.
> Here is the explanation that I often give to people (some of whom have
> been using and contributing to OSGeo projects for 5+ years):
>
> Members simply self identify as members on the wiki.
>
> Charter members are nominated and elected. They do what they see fit
> when they see fit to further/support the goals and mission of OSGeo.
> It has also historically been a badge of honor for contributing good
> work.
>
> What a "Charter Member" is is a matter of endless debate but the very
> practical purpose is simple: The real practical purpose of Charter
> Members is to elect the Board of Directors (and more Charter Members).
> It is to prevent hostile takeover of the organization (or the
> organization's resources) since OSGeo other than voting for the Board
> and Charter Members, is open to all who find it, figure out how to
> participate, are inclined to participate, and feel welcome.
>
> By offering to nominate you as a Charter Member what I really
> think is that:
> 1) you support the OSGeo Mission and Goals (promote Open Source GIS
> software through the world)
> 2) you are sufficiently responsible and care enough to pay minimal
> attention twice per year to vote for the OSGeo Board of Directors and
> additional Charter Members
> 3) in the extremely unlikely scenario of a hostile takeover you would
> first be aware of it and secondly vote to prevent it <--this is
> really the sole purpose of Charter Members but it is so unlikely that
> people forget this is the purpose and it is sort of a stupid purpose
> (even if necessary).
>
>
>
> In that regard, I think that the survey should include some
> questions like:
>
> "OSGeo Membership should be more open/closed" "Agree or Disagree
> 1-10; 10 is strongly agree, 1 is strongly disagree"
>
> "The primary purpose of OSGeo Membership is: a) increase participation
> in OSGeo activities b) recognize substantial OSGeo contributors c)
> give members a sense of identity and cohesion d)
> other_________________________"
>
> "Maintaining some structure to prevent takeover of the organization
> is: a) a waste of time and effort b) worthwhile even if guarding
> against an unlikely event c) other_____________"
>
> "Charter membership should be renamed to a) keep it as Charter b)
> voting members c) electors d) other _____________"
>
> "Charter membership should not be used as an honor or mark of prestige
> instead those should be addressed by a) disagree, charter membership
> is for prestige b) The Sol Katz Award c) we should have some other
> badge system d) other ________"
>
> "The number of Charter members should be a) restricted to some low
> number b) only be constrained by the number of good candidates
> available c) other _________"
>
> and other questions regarding the types and nature of OSGeo membership
>
> I do believe that Charter members play an important role guarding
> against the extremely unlikely risk of a takeover. Other than that
> very minor role which can be achieved by several methods, I think that
> all OSGeo activities should be as open as possible to as many people
> as possible.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> [1] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership
> [52] http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Category:OSGeo_Member --
> fewer than 1,000 people have bothered to register as "Members"
> [53] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_member_page_instruction
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Vasile Craciunescu
> <vasile at geo-spatial.org <mailto:vasile at geo-spatial.org>> wrote:
> > Dear Cameron, Arnulf, Jeff and Gert-Jan,
> >
> > Thank you for your appreciations! It was an interesting exercise
> of digital
> > archeology :)
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I'm waiting until tomorrow for more feedback/ideas. Then I will
> draft a
> > survey, I will send you the questions and ask for your opinion
> and finally,
> > if all agree, the survey will be sent to all charter members.
> >
> > Best,
> > Vasile
> >
> >
> > On 7/2/15 3:29 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Vasile for all your excellent research. Great job (and an
> >> interesting read).
> >>
> >> Are you planning to draft sample questions and tick box answers
> to be
> >> commented on before being put to the vote?
> >>
> >> Cheers Cameron?
> >>
> >> On 30/06/2015 10:39 pm, Arnulf Christl (OSGeo) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>> Hash: SHA1
> >>>
> >>> Vasile,
> >>> thanks from here too for this very useful recap. I posted it
> more or
> >>> less verbatim to the discussion page of the Charter Members
> article in
> >>> the Wiki:
> >>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Talk:Membership_Process
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>> on the OSGeo Wiki we currently have 605 "self categorized"
> OSGeo members:
> >>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Category:OSGeo_Member
> >>>
> >>> This is the best we can currently do for anybody who is
> interested in
> >>> becoming an OSGeo member apart from subscribing to the Discuss
> mailing
> >>> list or being nominated as a "Charter Member" to be then
> elected by an
> >>> eclectic group of geospatial whizzes.
> >>>
> >>> Just to reiterate: "Charter Members" are usually those who set
> up the
> >>> charter of an organization:
> >>> "A charter member of an organization is an original member;
> that is, one
> >>> who became a member when the organization received its charter."
> >>> - From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter
> >>>
> >>> After signing the Charter they can continue to participate
> actively in
> >>> the organization, go away or even die - without any of this
> actually
> >>> changing the Charter.
> >>>
> >>> What is OSGeo's Charter? My guess is that the section "About
> the Open
> >>> Source Geospatial Foundation" contains what we would consider our
> >>> Charter.
> >>>
> >>> As a legal body incorporated in Delaware, USA we needed to
> implement how
> >>> the newly founded organization should support this charter.
> This has
> >>> been written into the bylaws:
> >>> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
> >>>
> >>> In "ARTICLE VII Members" of our bylaws we specify how we plan
> to manage
> >>> membership. There is no talk of "Charter Members", just "members".
> >>> Looking at what we did almost 10 years ago it was probably the
> right
> >>> thing to do at that time. But it may be good for an update. My
> >>> suggestion is to change this section into regular membership
> and remove
> >>> the self-pollinating aspect. At the same time we could update our
> >>> "About" section into a proper Charter and then go ahead and
> operate as
> >>> any regular member association.
> >>>
> >>> On a personal note: I do not see any danger of a hostile
> take-over. This
> >>> was an important catch we put into the DNA of OSGeo when we
> founded it.
> >>> There never was a hostile take-over and I cannot really see it
> coming.
> >>> We are big enough to not need to fear this anymore. And we
> would make
> >>> OSGeo a much more open and welcoming organization if we moved
> away from
> >>> this somewhat strange self pollinating system.
> >>>
> >>> I am not really passionate about this and only consider it an
> overdue
> >>> maintenance patch to how OSGeo functions. If there is no broad
> interest
> >>> I am happy to drop the ball, otherwise I am as happy to help
> build a
> >>> more appropriate member mechanism.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Seven
> >>>
> >>> - -- Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)
> >>> OSGeo President Emeritus
> >>> OSGeo Founding and Charter Member
> >>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Arnulf_Christl
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 30.06.2015 13:24, Gert-Jan van der Weijden - Stichting
> OSGeo.nl wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Vasile: thanks for this very useful recap.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A few remarks from a relative newbie as I am ;-)
> >>>> - the name of the wiki page with the charter members is
> already called
> >>>> "voting members" ;-)
> >>>> - the charter member list grows and grows. Over the year only
> 1 person
> >>>> retired from the charter member list
> >>>> - charter membership seems to drift towards a title of honour,
> >>>> instead of a
> >>>> mechanism for proper board elections and prevent a hostile
> take-over
> >>>> - the voting participant rate for the board elections is low
> over the
> >>>> years:
> >>>> 70% - 85%. I would expect 100%!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Therefore, I'd suggest a voting membership with:
> >>>> - a fixed number of seats (e.g. 72)
> >>>> - with a certain numbers of seats reserved for each region [51],
> >>>> (e.g. 6*6,
> >>>> and thus 36 remaining "wildcard"-seats).
> >>>> - in case of not enough candidates, or note enough votes for
> a candidate
> >>>> from a certain region, seats can remain empty
> >>>> - a 3 term (instead of a lifetime membership, re-election
> possible)
> >>>> - and a mechanism in which not all seats are elected every
> year, but
> >>>> one-third every year, and thus all seats once every three years
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just my 2 eurocents,
> >>>>
> >>>> Gert-Jan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [51] http://bl.ocks.org/jsanz/raw/779f9b9954b92461fa50/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> >>>> Van: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>>> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>] Namens Vasile Craciunescu
> >>>> Verzonden: maandag 29 juni 2015 15:08
> >>>> Aan: OSGeo Discussions
> >>>> Onderwerp: [OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections
> >>>>
> >>>> 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_founda
> >>>>
> >>>> tion_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_Minut
> >>>>
> >>>> es
> >>>> [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 <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Discuss mailing list
> >>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>>
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> >>>
> >>> iEYEARECAAYFAlWSjfQACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b2JJACeLfsFZzEGCbQK9bCkfyn8kO5S
> >>> mnIAnjZRlV9rRG6DFrZg/PpsVDj8uJ8l
> >>> =/hLJ
> >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Discuss mailing list
> >>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Vasile Crăciunescu
> > geo-spatial.org <http://geo-spatial.org>: An elegant place for
> sharing geoKnowledge & geoData
> > http://www.geo-spatial.org
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/geo-spatial
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Massimiliano Cannata*
>
> Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
>
> Responsabile settore Geomatica
>
>
> Istituto scienze della Terra
>
> Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
>
> Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
>
> Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio
>
> Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14
>
> Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
>
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch <mailto:massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>
>
> _www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>_
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
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 www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150704/d2fbeb48/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list