[Board] Charter Member Nominations

[Tyler Mitchell]

On 2010-10-28, at 10:07 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> I believe we should err on the side of inclusiveness.  Any reasonable
> effort to participate in the elections should be treated as activity.

In that case I don't see any consistently absent voters.  Everyone has voted in EITHER a charter member election or board election over the past three years. 

A few caveats:
1. There are *potentially* 4 people who haven't voted for 2 years in a row, but no more than 4.  I don't have complete stats on charter voters from 2008 (working with Jo and restoring some lost emails to get these numbers).  

2. I also might be overestimating who didn't vote last year for the board election (counting 23 at present) since there was some date/time confusion and I think some votes came in late.  I would like to take late voters out of the counting even though their votes didn't count.

3. I haven't pulled in this year's board vote stats yet.  

Please consider that if the board chooses (again) to affirm every nominated charter member without voting, then that will be 2 years in a row where the membership has not chosen for itself who to add to its ranks.  Technically speaking, this can turn out to hurt OSGeo in the future if members start to nominate someone knowing there might not be a vote.  In one way this also takes away one more opportunity to flex their muscles of membership and show interest in OSGeo when I look at my kind of "active voter" analysis.  Just a thought...

My personal opinion is to not change the rules mid-process this time around.  There is always next year for more nominees.

Hope that makes sense,
Tyler