<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Bruce,<br>
I agree that a nominating member should explain why a candidate is
worth voting for (rather than a candidate promoting themselves). I
think the words below address that. If you can think of a better way
of expressing your intent, can you please suggest alternative
wording.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/07/2014 10:34 am, Bruce Bannerman
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CFDADFA2.1B0D8%25b.bannerman@bom.gov.au"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>Cameron,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is perhaps one other aspect of the process that you may
wish to review.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is the requirement for nominees to ‘beat their own
chest’ saying how good they are.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think that this step is not required. What needs to be
said, should be said by the person who is doing the nomination.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are also cultural issue to consider, where people do
not feel comfortable doing this step.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We also discussed this last year on Discuss [1].</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bruce</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2013-July/012079.html">http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2013-July/012079.html</a> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt;
text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none;
BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT:
0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span
style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Cameron Shorter <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Tuesday, 1 July
2014 8:40 pm<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> Discuss OSGeo <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org">discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:board@lists.osgeo.org">board@lists.osgeo.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:board@lists.osgeo.org">board@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re:
[OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo
charter members<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Thanks all for your comments. I've updated based on your
feedback to:<br>
<br>
<i>1a. Charter member to nominate potential new charter
member(s) (as before).</i><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>1b. A person who meets the "Positive Attributes for
Charter Members" [1]</i><i>, may ask an charter member who
can vouch for the person to nominate them.<br>
<br>
</i><i>2. Charter members then vote (in/out/</i><i><b>abstain</b></i><i>)
nominated charter members. This will be different to prior
years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of members
for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a
list of 30). For this year, I propose we have a "Yes/No"
vote. Ie, if we have a list of 30 candidates, we will ask
all charter members to vote Yes or No against each
candidate. Each candidate with
</i><i><b>more YES votes than NO votes as well as greater
than 5% of charter members who voted</b></i><i> will be
included as new charter members.</i><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>3. Charter members would be guided to select
candidates who fit the "Positive Attributes for Charter
Members" [1]
</i><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>4. There will be no limit to the number of new
charter members who can be selected. This will require an
update of
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process">
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process</a></i><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes">
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes</a></i><br>
<br>
---<br>
Some specific answers below:<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/06/2014 6:39 am, Alex
Mandel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53B0798E.8040007@wildintellect.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The only reservation I have is on the 50% Yes/No, but maybe I just need
a clarification.
I see plenty of people potentially voting Yes/No/Abstain(just not
marking a particular candidate).</pre>
</blockquote>
Good suggestion. Text updated to "move YES votes than NO
votes".<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos
Tzotsos wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53B0A23D.2080007@gmail.com"
type="cite">Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes
votes on each candidate before acceptance. A fixed
percentage of the Charter Members maybe?
</blockquote>
Good suggestion. Added "..as well as 5% of charter members
who voted".<br>
So if there are 180 charter members, and say 100 vote, that
would mean you would need 5 YES votes.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/06/2014 11:51 am, Eli
Adam wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACqBkM8-YN6q6N7OFRsvU2tormYrcsUQ_joRWoTOi1Z70kcHEg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If the goal is to have an inclusive charter membership, then some of
these voting methods would potentially better accommodate all nominees
based on an evaluation of
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes</a>.
Even brought up that most OSGeo projects work on some form of
consensus. 50%+ is nothing like consensus. I would support requiring
much less opposition for approval. Perhaps no more than 5-10 "no"
votes. For me, to vote "no" I will need to know the person very well
and know that they lack all or most of these,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes</a> or I
will need to know that they actively think or behave counter to one or
more of those characteristics.
Angelos brought up the idea of a minimum level of support. That could
be combined with a minimal level of opposition.</pre>
</blockquote>
Good thoughts. I think there is a balance to be struck
between being exclusive and inclusive, and I think it better
to err on being more inclusive. Hopefully adding in "..as
well as 5% of charter members who voted" should address your
concerns.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/06/2014 8:34 pm, Steven
Feldman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:52339912-125B-4DA0-8A23-B42F7A14C130@gmail.com"
type="cite">
If we want to avoid "<i>establishing a self-sustaining
oligarchy</i>” then perhaps we need to consider ways of
becoming a mass membership organisation rather than one
governed by a self selecting elite group.
</blockquote>
I don't think we need worry to much about "<i>establishing a
self-sustaining oligarchy</i>”. By setting the above
criteria, I think that anyone who fits the "Positive
Attributes" will now find it easy to become a charter
member.<br>
<br>
On 30/06/2014 8:34 pm, Steven Feldman wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:52339912-125B-4DA0-8A23-B42F7A14C130@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Should we consider separating the Charter Members who
could continue to be acknowledged for their
contributions to OSGeo (but maybe by the whole
membership not just existing Charter Members) from the
process of voting for the board? If we want to be open
and inclusive we need to empower a larger group of
contributors to vote for the people who set policy and
manage our organisation. Perhaps it could be a
requirement for board membership that candidates have
already been voted as charter members by the wider
membership.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We could go for something like the OSM Foundation
where membership at £15/yr entitles you to vote for
the Foundation Board or we could go for a free
membership category with some qualifying criteria.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Adding membership dues for membership breaks our Bylaws,
(see below) and is not something that I'm ready to champion
changing before the next election. (I expect a lawyer would
be required to make this happen).<br>
Adding another membership category could be added, but lets
take this as a separate issue.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/06/2014 6:58 pm, Even
Rouault wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1404118697.53b126a96e1d5@imp.free.fr"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Not answering on behalf of Peter, but a potential idea to solve those issues
would be to combine Cameron proposal of a yes/no vote on each nominee + allow
people to self-nominate them (as you do in political elections). That should
help solving the "self-sustaining oligarchy"
We could add a rule that a self-nominee must at least be seconded by at least X
charter member(s). Such a rule would not particuarly shoking to avoid unrelevant
candidates (e.g. in France to be candidate to the presidential election you must
have at least support from at least 500 already elected persons : mayors,
deputies, etc... But such a rule is regularly contested by "small" candidates.)
Or we could not make it a rule, but allow charter members to express their
support for the candidature of a self-nominee.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Good idea. I've adjusted a bit and added:<br>
<i>1b. A person who meets the "Positive Attributes for
Charter Members" [1]</i><i>, may ask an charter member who
can vouch for the person to nominate them.<br>
</i>I'm hoping that the revised text is simpler to
implement, and doesn't break existing bylaws.<br>
<i><br>
</i><br>
On 30/06/2014 7:08 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:<br>
<br>
Peter,<br>
I was hoping to keep things simple to administer. I'm hoping
the other comments above addressed your ideas.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/06/2014 9:31 pm, Cameron
Shorter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53AAB2F7.4040607@gmail.com"
type="cite">Following the community discussion, I further
researched OSGeo's foundation documents, (in retrospect I
should have done this earlier).<br>
<br>
Of particular relevance to current discussion is our
ByLaws:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html">http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html</a><br>
<i>Section 7.1. Admission of [Charter] Members. An initial
group of up to forty-five (45) persons shall be admitted
as the initial [charter] members of the corporation upon
the affirmative vote of the Board of Directors of the
corporation. Thereafter, to be eligible for [charter]
membership, a person must be nominated by an existing
[charter] member of the corporation pursuant to a
written document in such form as shall be adopted by the
Board of Directors from time to time. The nomination
must be included in a notice to the [charter] members at
least ten (10) days in advance of the meeting at which
the [charter] members will vote on the applicant’s
admission. Proposed [charter] members shall be admitted
upon the affirmative vote of the members of the
corporation.</i><br>
<br>
This section implies that the proposal below of
automatically accepting "Recognised OSGeo Community
Leaders" is unconstitutional, as charter members need to
be voted into the role by existing charter members.<br>
<br>
It also implies that while a separate paid membership
category could be created, paid members would still need
to be voted into a charter member role by existing charter
members.<br>
<br>
The ByLaws don't mention limiting the number of new
charter members. This criteria seems to have been
introduced as a Membership Process by the 26th Board
meeting:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process</a><br>
<i>The number of new members will be between 10% and one
third of the existing charter membership count as
decided by the board</i>.<br>
<br>
Such a statement created by the board, could be updated by
the board, and as such the board could agree to accept an
unlimited number of new charter members.<br>
<br>
So I'm now thinking that our election process can be
simplified to:<br>
<br>
1. Charter member to nominate potential new charter
member(s)<br>
2. Charter members then vote (in/out) against all
nominated charter members<br>
A suitable criteria for determining whether a nominee
qualifies is listed here: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes">
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes</a><br>
4. Nominees with a majority of votes are included as new
Charter Members<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/06/2014 9:52 am,
Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:539CE03F.8010005@gmail.com"
type="cite">Within 2 weeks we intend to start our annual
process for selecting new OSGeo charter members.<br>
<br>
In previous years the Charter Member selection process
has been a little contentious. We typically receive
numerous nominations from high caliber members of our
community, and insufficient positions to accept them
all. This typically results in unnecessary
disappointment and dissent.<br>
<br>
In response, the OSGeo board has agreed to trial
tweaking the voting process. 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. Community comments are encouraged, and will be
considered over the next week.<br>
<br>
<b>Design guidelines:</b><br>
<br>
* We want a process which is simple to understand and
implement.<br>
* We want a process which encourages recognised OSGeo
community leaders to become OSGeo charter members, while
continuing to accept members from the many other
valuable OSGeo roles.<br>
* We want a process which is difficult to abuse.<br>
* For the first iteration, we should err on being more
selective in our criteria, with potential widening of
selection criteria in future years.<br>
<br>
<b>Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders</b><b><br>
</b><br>
OSGeo aims to provide OSGeo Charter Membership to all
recognised OSGeo community leaders who are nominated.
Hopefully, sufficient positions are available. If there
are more candidates than available, then membership will
be allocated to the first to be nominated. Remaining
nominees will be automatically offered to go through the
standard voting process.<br>
Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders are defined as people
who have been <b>voted</b> into a position of authority
within official OSGeo projects and committees, where the
voting community includes at least 3 OSGeo charter
members.<br>
<br>
Acceptable roles are currently limited to:<br>
* Project Steering Committee member of a Graduated OSGeo
Project<br>
* Chair of Official Local Chapter<br>
* Chair of an OSGeo committee<br>
<br>
The application process for recognised OSGeo Community
Leaders is the same as for other nominees.<br>
<br>
Full text of our processes are at:<br>
* <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process_2014">
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process_2014</a><br>
* <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014">
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014</a></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F +61 2 9009 5099</pre>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/06/2014 11:51 am, Eli
Adam wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACqBkM8-YN6q6N7OFRsvU2tormYrcsUQ_joRWoTOi1Z70kcHEg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Angelos Tzotsos <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gcpp.kalxas@gmail.com"><gcpp.kalxas@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 06/30/2014 12:07 AM, Daniel Kastl wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2. Charter members then vote (in/out) nominated charter members. This
will
be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of
members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of
30). For this year, I propose we have a "Yes/No" vote. Ie, if we have a
list of 30 candidates, we will ask all charter members to vote Yes or No
against each candidate. Each candidate with greater than 50% of YES votes
will be included as new charter members.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Well, I doubt some charter member would vote with "No" for candidates.
And what if you don't know a candidate well enough or not at all?
So I'm not sure this is really a good idea. I believe the result will just
be that all candidates will be accepted ... as in previous years.
Daniel
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before
acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">If the goal is to have an inclusive charter membership, then some of
these voting methods would potentially better accommodate all nominees
based on an evaluation of
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes</a>.
Even brought up that most OSGeo projects work on some form of
consensus. 50%+ is nothing like consensus. I would support requiring
much less opposition for approval. Perhaps no more than 5-10 "no"
votes. For me, to vote "no" I will need to know the person very well
and know that they lack all or most of these,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes</a> or I
will need to know that they actively think or behave counter to one or
more of those characteristics.
Angelos brought up the idea of a minimum level of support. That could
be combined with a minimal level of opposition.
I know that the process needs proceed soon.
Eli
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Angelos
--
Angelos Tzotsos
Remote Sensing Laboratory
National Technical University of Athens
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos">http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos</a>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F +61 2 9009 5099</pre>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</blockquote>
<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>