[Board] motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter membership more exclusive

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi Bart,

Cameron's message didn't make it to my inbox.

That said, the vote for changing the election process will proceed; I 
appreciate Cameron's concerns, but, that 5% threshold was an error made 
last year and the Board is now correcting an unfortunate error.  As I 
mentioned in my elections-kickoff message to the Board on 25 May, what 
we saw last year for the first time was strategic nominations placed by 
some people and we will correct that this year.  I am sorry for being 
direct here.

My votes will be send in a separate message.  You of course are free to 
vote however you feel.

-jeff



On 2015-06-20 3:53 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
> Board, Cameron has a point here.
>
> I'd suggest we keep the accepted threshold for this year's election in
> order not to stall the election process.
>
> Let's discuss with the community way in time for next year's elections.
>
> Bart
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 20 jun. 2015, at 01:59, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com
> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> OSGeo board,
>> As an OSGeo Charter member, I request that the following motion (see
>> below) not be passed without first discussing publicly on the OSGeo
>> Discuss email list.
>>
>> The current process for joining OSGeo Charter Membership [2] was
>> specifically refined to be more inclusive than before, in order to
>> make it easy for all passionate people within the OSGeo community to
>> join, while aiming to protect against the now relatively unlikely
>> possibility of a hostile takeover.
>>
>> Based on the proposal below, 11 out of 64 of last years successful
>> nominations would be rejected under the  proposed new rules. I suggest
>> this is not in OSGeo's interests.
>>
>> It is possible that some of these 11 people are not very involved in
>> OSGeo, and maybe haven't contributed much since being nominated, but
>> is that a bad thing? Have any of these 11 people been actively
>> detrimental to OSGeo while being an OSGeo Charter member? Note, the
>> only official duty of a charter member is to vote for the board.
>> However, being recognised as a charter member is useful for many of
>> our members looking to gain OSGeo credibility, such as when presenting
>> at conferences.
>>
>> If we are more inclusive, and add 10 new non-active/non-disruptive
>> OSGeo Charter members, then I'd argue that it is worth it for the 1
>> passionate Charter member we also gain.
>>
>> I remember a quote from Jeff which rang true with me, and which I
>> think is applicable here:
>> /
>> //"I once heard an interview with a legendary lead singer of a band,
>> who said his goal each concert was to make the kid sitting in the very
>> back row to feel like he's as much a part of the concert as the kid
>> sitting in the front row, and this is exactly how I focus my community
>> work for OSGeo."/
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-August/013498.html
>>
>> Warm regards, Cameron Shorter
>>
>> On 20/06/2015 5:29 am, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Please also vote for motion below.
>>>
>>> 5) For the new charter members elections, change the threshold of
>>> required YES votes of charter members from 5% to 50%. See Jeff's
>>> e-mail [1] for detailed explanations and the rationale of this
>>> change. If needed, also check the Membership Process [2].
>>>
>>> My vote is +1.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Vasile
>>>
>>> [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-May/012863.html
>>> [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process
>>
>>
>> On 26/05/2015 2:18 am, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>> 3. Decide on 2015 Selection Process
>>> -----------------------------------
>>>
>>> To refresh everyone's memory, last year we (Board) modified the
>>> selection process[3] for Charter members; but in my opinion we made a
>>> mistake with the voting change of "Each candidate with more YES votes
>>> than NO votes, and greater than 5% of voting charter members voting
>>> YES for them, will be included as new charter members."
>>>
>>> What I saw was, for the first time in OSGeo history, strategic
>>> nominations by certain projects, for relatively unknown community
>>> members; the result was that all 64 nominations were accepted as
>>> Charter members.
>>>
>>> For 2015, I am proposing we make 1 change, instead of the 5%
>>> acceptance, change that to 50% or greater voting YES.   Such as:
>>>
>>> ***
>>> Each candidate with more YES votes than NO votes, and greater than or
>>> equal to 50% of voting charter members voting YES for them, will be
>>> included as new charter members.
>>> ***
>>>
>>> I have checked the 2014 results again, and with those new 50% rules,
>>> we would have accepted 45 nominations versus all 64 nominations.  I
>>> believe this is much better.
>>>
>>> But of course this needs to be decided by the Board and community.  I
>>> am merely kicking off the process   So please speak your mind, or
>>> edit the 2015 Elections wiki directly.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> -jeff
>> --
>> 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,  Wwww.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>


-- 
Jeff McKenna
MapServer Consulting and Training Services
http://www.gatewaygeomatics.com/