[Board] Added "OSGeo Charter Responsibilities"

[Jeff McKenna]

This is from a private message sent to me "Poor nominations are a 
reflection on the person who wrote it." Sure, that could be true.  I 
guess we need more firm rules on nominations for the next election.  I 
do hope that everyone takes time to write nominations, contacts the 
nominee beforehand, nudges them to update their wiki page...maybe those 
hopes need to be written down I guess.

-jeff



On 2014-08-18 3:49 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
> Hi Jorge,
>
> Thanks so much for compiling those numbers.
>
> For the record, I followed the discussion when the changes were
> proposed, and it was done all in the open, correctly (I am not
> questioning who or how); I just want to take a second to explain why I
> agree with Venka that we need to tweak those changes a little, now that
> we can see the results.
>
> Regarding the rules not explained on the 2014 elections page, I think my
> confusion is that in the "Revised Selection Process" section of the
> wiki, the actual new rules are not written there, and likely could be
> outlined there on that same page, for the 2015 election.
>
> It is interesting to me that with the 51% number, 45 of 64 would have
> made it (in my head I would say there was about 15 or so poor
> nominations), so those numbers go along with that theory.
>
> I think we should just slightly modify the new rules for the next
> Charter Member election, including adding the requirement of an updated
> OSGeo wiki page for each nominee.
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2014-08-18 2:41 PM, Jorge Sanz wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Some comments
>>
>> - The updated criteria for election of CM is documented on the
>> Membership Process wiki page[1], linked on the elections page. That
>> page was updated by myself and Cameron *before* the nominations period
>> started.
>>
>> - Regarding the 5%, or just the criteria on support, it was rised by
>> Angelos during the request for comments done by Cameron[2] and (I
>> suppose) Cameron placed a low limit for inclusiveness.
>>
>> - After the elections results, I agree that limit it's too low and it
>> would be really hard for a candidate to not get it. Charter Members
>> should have a higher level of support to be accepted.
>>
>> - As CRO, for the records, and hoping that those numbers are
>> meaningful and help to improve the criteria, let me share some basic
>> statistics regarding support, that is: yes/(yes+no+abs):
>>
>> -- Maximum: 84%
>> -- Minimum: 39%
>> -- Average: 56%
>> -- Number of candidates with more than 51%: 45 of 64
>>
>> Anyway it's the first time we have those numbers easy at hand. For the
>> next elections we can refine some details on the voting and nomination
>> process like making a better statement about what a good nomination
>> is, some tips to help charter members to make an opinion about a
>> candidate, decide a higher level of support requested, etc.
>>