[Board] Added "OSGeo Charter Responsibilities"

[Jeff McKenna]

Also thinking out loud on this, with so many nominations this year I 
(and from what I was told later, many others did this as well) relied on 
seconds/support emails for several of my votes.  If a nominee does not 
have any visible support (other than the original nomination) from any 
other community member, should that nomination be automatically rejected 
by the CRO?  Just wondering the community's thoughts on that.

-jeff



On 2014-08-18 4:07 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
> 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.
>>>