[Board] Added "OSGeo Charter Responsibilities"

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi Even,

Yes that was what I was thinking, but, I agree that it is not the best. 
  But it was striking how important seconds/support messages were in 
this past election.  I guess people can choose to pay attention to them 
or not.

Hmm...

-jeff



On 2014-08-18 5:47 PM, Even Rouault wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Do you mean that seconding should be a requirement ? Wouldn't make it
> complicated to extend the community to countries where there are not already so
> many Charter members ? And with so many nominations, that might transform the
> discuss mailing list into a high volume list where we get lost in the flow of
> emails.
>
> Even
>
>> 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.
>>>>>
>>