[Board] Election process 2014

[Jorge Sanz]

2014-06-13 23:31 GMT+02:00 Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>:

>  Hi Jorge and Alex, (cc board)
>
> As per last board meeting:
> *In response, the OSGeo board has agreed to trial tweaking the voting
> process. The aim is to automatically accept recognised OSGeo community
> leaders. We are inviting comments from the community to help us tweak the
> process, and I have been allocated the task of collecting and incorporating
> community feedback.*
>
> Digging around, it seems there are 2 pages needing updating:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process (draft being worked at
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process_2014)
>
> I notice one thing needing updating is that we are switching from using an
> "email to the CRO" to using limesurvey. Alex, and/or Jorge, I think you
> know the details for this? Could you please update
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process_2014 to describe the use of
> LimeSurvey.
>
> I'll continue over the next 14 hours or so updating these 2 pages with
> proposed new text, will send to the board email list for comment, then
> email to osgeo-discuss asking for comment in 24 hours.
>
>
Hi all,

I've updated the Membership process 2014[1] and the Electronic Voting[2]
wiki pages with details about the election procedure and the LimeSurvey
system.

[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process_2014
[2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Electronic_Voting

Some comments on my own:

- We should state that if all the community leader seats are not filled,
they will be available to regular nominees to complete the reverse case
already documented.

- On a tie for two or more nominees, I would prefer to avoid a random
process resolution and just accept all of them. Well I'm the CRO so it's
normal that I don't want to be on that position, but anyway I think it
makes no sense to let a random process to discard one or more nominated
individuals.

- I agree with Even about stating clearly that two ways to accept new
Charter Members doesn't implies any difference afterwards.

Thinking on Arnulf last comment, I wonder if we should increase the number
of positions. On the last meeting we decided 20 (10+10) but maybe 10 seats
for non community leaders is quite restrictive if you think on all good
people on Local Chapters that are not coders or simply project focused, but
working on education, outreach, etc.

Last year we had 37 new Charter Members, how many of them fit on the
"community leaders" category? not so many. Thinking aloud, maybe we can
just accept all the community leaders, and then restrict the regular voting
process to the remaining up to the third. So if we have 20 leaders in, then
we have 34 seats to offer to the voting process (54 is a third of our
current CM list).

My own vision is to have as many CM as possible, so probably no election
would be needed as we Increase every year our people, but I understand that
others would agree on a membership that is harder to get and that an
election is healthy to a community and wouldn't discourage to people to
participate if they don't get it on the first try. Another very different
topic is adding meaning to being a member, but that's a discussion probably
better after the summer :-)

Best

-- 
Jorge Sanz
http://www.osgeo.org
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jorge_Sanz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20140614/2b7f0558/attachment.htm>