[Board] Election process 2014

[Cameron Shorter]

Thanks all for your feedback, comments inline:

On 14/06/2014 11:33 pm, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Even,
> thanks for the suggestions which I support (due to the short time
> frame before going "public" I refrained from editing the Wiki in case
> that the suggestions would in the eyes of the authors change the
> content too strongly).
>
>
> Board,
> my proposal would have been different but I actually like this one
> even better, well done.
>
> We maybe want to tone down "bad blood" into "dissension" or something
> less martial. So far no blood was shed during the process afaik. :-)
> (I know this is a proper English term but for us less English native
> speakers it does have a fierce tone to it).
Nice recommendation. Text now: "This typically results in unnecessary 
disappointment and dissent."

>
> I like the implicitness of having to *do* something real for OSGeo in
> order to become a Charter Member. But it will make it more difficult
> if not impossible for people in non-organizationally recognized
> positions to become a member. There are probably many out there who
> work in projects which are "just" labs-status, in incubation, on the
> fringes of our core software development - but they are still highly
> valuable supporters of OSGeo. Maybe adding a phrase that we still
> encourage everybody to join/apply/get nominated regardless of their
> institutional tie-ins would make it feel more inclusive.
Good suggestion.
Reworded to:

/The aim is to automatically accept recognised OSGeo community leaders, 
while continuing with our existing process which attracts the many 
valuable community members who contribute in other ways./
>
>
> Thanks,
> Arnulf
>
> On 06/14/2014 08:36 PM, Even Rouault wrote:
>> Le samedi 14 juin 2014 13:42:17, Cameron Shorter a écrit :
>>> OSGeo board, Jorge, I've updated the proposed voting process
>>> docs. Feel free to review and add comments. I intend to email
>>> osgeo-discuss in ~ 9 hours.
>> Cameron,
>>
>> A few remarks below
>>
>>> Key changes:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014#Revised_selection_process
>>>
>>>
>>>
> *Revised selection process**
>>> * In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been
>>> a little contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations
>>> from
>> Shouldn't that be "for" rather than "from" in that context ?
No, that was my intent.
>>
>>> high caliber members of our community, and insufficient positions
>>> to accept them all. This typically results in unnecessary
>>> disappointment and bad blood.
>>>
>>> In response, the OSGeo board has agreed to trial tweaking the
>>> voting process. The aim is to automatically accept recognised
>>> OSGeo community leaders.
>> I've not a strong opinion about this, and I believe that this is
>> not what is intended, but I'm wondering if some would not feel that
>> the are two kinds of Charter members : the ones who don't need to
>> be elected, and the ones that do. Perhaps an explicit message
>> stating that "whatever the way they got in, all Charter members are
>> equal" could alleviate this.

Good point, hopefully now covered by:
/The aim is to automatically accept recognised OSGeo community leaders, 
while continuing with our existing process which attracts the many 
valuable community members who contribute in other ways./
>>
>>> A week's provided to all community comments.
>>>
>>> Design guidelines: * We want a process which is simple to
>>> understand and implement * We want a process which encourages
>>> recognised OSGeo community leaders to become OSGeo charter
>>> members * We want a process which is difficult to abuse * For the
>>> first iteration, we should err on being more selective in our
>>> criteria, with potential widening of selection criteria in future
>>> years.
>>>
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process_2014#Positions_for_recognised
>>>
>>>
> _OSGeo_Community_Leaders
>>> *Positions for recognised OSGeo Community Leaders*
>>>
>>> OSGeo aims to provide OSGeo Charter Membership to all recognised
>>> OSGeo community leaders who apply.
>> "who apply": reading this, I would understand that those community
>> leaders should apply themselves, instead of being nominated. Which
>> is contradicted by the last sentence of your proposal. So perhaps
>> replace with "who are nominated"
Updated as suggested.
>>
>>> Hopefully, sufficient positions are available. If there are more
>>> candidates than available, then membership will be allocated to
>>> the first to apply. Remaining nominees will be automatically
>>> offered to go through the standard voting process.
>> I'd say that the sits for the OSGeo community leaders should be
>> extended to accomodate as many as nominated ones, otherwise it
>> could cause some frustrations for the late nominees, as the timing
>> criterion is rather arbitrary.
Good idea, but we are bound by our OSGeo charter to limit the number of 
charter members we accept, so I can't see how we can change this in a 
better way.

On 15/06/2014 4:08 am, Jorge Sanz wrote:
> 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.
Good idea. I've added this section:

*/Charter Member positions available/*/
//
//The number of new charter members will be between 10% and one third of 
the existing charter membership count, with 50% allocated for recognised 
OSGeo Community Leaders, and 50% available for other candidates. 
Positions not filled by Community Leaders will become available for 
other members. The number of positions available will be recommended by 
the CRO, and confirmed by the board. Read more about the charter 
membership role .../

>
> - 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.
Good idea to address tie breakers. I've added this section:

*/Resolving tied votes/*/
//
//A nominee who receives no votes shall not be offered a position. (This 
is unlikely to happen, as you would expect at least one vote from the 
person who nominated the candidate).//
//In the case of a tied vote for final charter member positions://
//* If there are sufficient positions available, as per OSGeo charter, 
then all tied nominees will all be accepted.//
//* If there are insufficient positions, then the CRO's vote will count 
as 1.5 times a normal vote, in order to resolve the tie break.//
//In the case of a tied vote for board member positions://
//* The CRO's vote will count as 1.5 times a normal vote, in order to 
resolve the tie break./
>
> - I agree with Even about stating clearly that two ways to accept new 
> Charter Members doesn't implies any difference afterwards.
Updated as above.
>
> 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).
According to http://www.osgeo.org/charter_members, we have 181 charter 
members. 1/3 would be 60 positions rather than 54? (Or have some retired?)
>
> 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 :-)
>
Noting that we had 37 new candidates last year, I suggest we allocate 40 
positions, possibly a few more to resolve tie beaks. 20 positions to be 
reserved for recognised OSGeo community leaders.


-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20140615/41e85ceb/attachment.htm>