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

Steven Feldman shfeldman at gmail.com
Tue Jun 23 04:10:50 PDT 2015


I think the (Yes - No)/(Yes + Abstain + No) is a good percentage to work with - it is a bit like the Net Promoter model that is popular for current customer satisfaction. 

A change that I think might be worth considering is to count any non-voting charter members as Abstainers. If we include non voters as Abstainers then the percentage we are monitoring is (yes - no)/(total current charter members), then the threshold need not be too high (perhaps higher than 5%, say 10%). We might also have a condition that anyone receiving more than x% (5%?) no votes is not eligible.

I know it has been discussed before - with the larger number of charter members and the less demanding voting criteria, it is important that charter members do have some level of activity to sustain their charter status. Perhaps the minimum expectation could be that you vote in the annual charter election (even if your votes are all active Abstains)?

Charter membership is a privilege and hopefully also an acknowledgement of a contribution to the OSGeo community, it should not be given too easily and our community are entitled to expect a level of ongoing engagement from charter members


______
Steven


> On 22 Jun 2015, at 19:46, board-request at lists.osgeo.org wrote:
> 
> Send Board mailing list submissions to
> 	board at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	board-request at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	board-owner at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Board digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter
>      membership more exclusive (Bart van den Eijnden)
>   2. Re: motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter
>      membership more exclusive (Bart van den Eijnden)
>   3. Re: motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter
>      membership more exclusive (Daniel Morissette)
>   4. Re: motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter
>      membership more exclusive (Jeff McKenna)
>   5. Re: motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter
>      membership more exclusive (Jeff McKenna)
> 
> From: Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl>
> Subject: Re: [Board] motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter membership more exclusive
> Date: 22 June 2015 18:10:06 BST
> To: "board at lists.osgeo.org" <board at lists.osgeo.org>
> 
> 
> Actually the way we measure now (% support) there is no difference between a NO and an ABSTAIN? Should we not leave out ABSTAIN from the total population?
> 
> So:
> 
> YES / (NO + YES)  = percentage support?
> 
> Best regards,
> Bart
> 
>> On 22 Jun 2015, at 19:06, Peter Baumann <p.baumann at jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>> 
>> just to speak it out: of course NOs are one way of upvoting a favourite candidate.
>> -Peter
>> 
>> 
>> On 06/22/15 19:02, Jorge Sanz wrote:
>>> 2015-06-22 18:09 GMT+02:00 Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com>:
>>>> Margherita makes a very good point here, that if someone gets multiple NO
>>>> votes then they are probably not a good candidate. That's what I would have
>>>> thought as well.
>>>> 
>>>> However, after last year's election I was extremely surprised to see that
>>>> even the top-5 candidates which all got over 70% support also got 2-3 NO
>>>> votes each:
>>>> 
>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014_detailed_results
>>>> 
>>>> I don't understand why someone would vote NO for those 5 people as charter
>>>> members given track record. I can only imagine that not everybody interprets
>>>> the "NO" vote to mean the same thing...
>>>> 
>>> I'm pretty sure of that Daniel, and we only can try to improve that
>>> being well explicit on the instructions but still many people don't
>>> read the explanations.
>>> 
>>> I remember watching someone votes (no name, just his/her votes) and I
>>> was surprised of seeing a lot of NOes and thinking "he has not
>>> understood what we wanted to mean by a YES/NO/Abstain".
>>> 
>>> We'll try this year to improve the instructions on the voting, definitely.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr. Peter Baumann
>> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>>  www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>>  mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
>>  tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>>  www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
>>  tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
>> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl>
> Subject: Re: [Board] motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter membership more exclusive
> Date: 22 June 2015 18:19:49 BST
> To: "board at lists.osgeo.org" <board at lists.osgeo.org>
> 
> 
> Or someone else suggested:
> 
> (YES-NO) / (YES+NO+ABSTAIN)
> 
> But something doesn’t seem right the way we measure it now.
> 
> Best regards,
> Bart
> 
>> On 22 Jun 2015, at 19:10, Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl> wrote:
>> 
>> Actually the way we measure now (% support) there is no difference between a NO and an ABSTAIN? Should we not leave out ABSTAIN from the total population?
>> 
>> So:
>> 
>> YES / (NO + YES)  = percentage support?
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Bart
>> 
>>> On 22 Jun 2015, at 19:06, Peter Baumann <p.baumann at jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> just to speak it out: of course NOs are one way of upvoting a favourite candidate.
>>> -Peter
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 06/22/15 19:02, Jorge Sanz wrote:
>>>> 2015-06-22 18:09 GMT+02:00 Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com>:
>>>>> Margherita makes a very good point here, that if someone gets multiple NO
>>>>> votes then they are probably not a good candidate. That's what I would have
>>>>> thought as well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, after last year's election I was extremely surprised to see that
>>>>> even the top-5 candidates which all got over 70% support also got 2-3 NO
>>>>> votes each:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014_detailed_results
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't understand why someone would vote NO for those 5 people as charter
>>>>> members given track record. I can only imagine that not everybody interprets
>>>>> the "NO" vote to mean the same thing...
>>>>> 
>>>> I'm pretty sure of that Daniel, and we only can try to improve that
>>>> being well explicit on the instructions but still many people don't
>>>> read the explanations.
>>>> 
>>>> I remember watching someone votes (no name, just his/her votes) and I
>>>> was surprised of seeing a lot of NOes and thinking "he has not
>>>> understood what we wanted to mean by a YES/NO/Abstain".
>>>> 
>>>> We'll try this year to improve the instructions on the voting, definitely.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Peter Baumann
>>> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>>> www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>>> mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
>>> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>>> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>>> www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
>>> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
>>> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com>
> Subject: Re: [Board] motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter membership more exclusive
> Date: 22 June 2015 18:48:48 BST
> To: board at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> 
> There is definitely room for improvement to make sure the foundation is protected from a hostile take over which is becoming very unlikely given today's number of charter members anyway. But if we are still worried, then giving more importance to the NO votes in the calculation of the threshold is likely part of the solution. I just don't know what it the perfect solution would be.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, after looking at last year's numbers again I don't think that the proposed change to move to 50% YES votes is much better than the current situation unless we better educate our voters since based on last year's results it would just draw an arbitrary line in the middle of the list. Last year all candidates got 39% or more... that 39% is very close to 50%, and 29 of the 64 candidates were in the 45% to 55% range and most of them being people mostly active and visible at the local level in their own country or community. Many of them would have been turned down just because they are not popular enough outside of their home country to get an extra 5% votes to meet the arbitrary 50% line, that doesn't feel very inclusive to me.
> 
> 
> Short of having a better short term solution in the next week or so, my vote as charter member would be to keep the rules unchanged for this year and proceed with the 2015 election. ... and as we say every year... those who care enough to change the process (and I'm not one of them), should start working on new rules early in the fall to avoid repeating this process discussion again next sprint.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> On 2015-06-22 1:19 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>> Or someone else suggested:
>> 
>> (YES-NO) / (YES+NO+ABSTAIN)
>> 
>> But something doesn’t seem right the way we measure it now.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Bart
>> 
>>> On 22 Jun 2015, at 19:10, Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Actually the way we measure now (% support) there is no difference between a NO and an ABSTAIN? Should we not leave out ABSTAIN from the total population?
>>> 
>>> So:
>>> 
>>> YES / (NO + YES)  = percentage support?
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bart
>>> 
>>>> On 22 Jun 2015, at 19:06, Peter Baumann <p.baumann at jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> just to speak it out: of course NOs are one way of upvoting a favourite candidate.
>>>> -Peter
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 06/22/15 19:02, Jorge Sanz wrote:
>>>>> 2015-06-22 18:09 GMT+02:00 Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com>:
>>>>>> Margherita makes a very good point here, that if someone gets multiple NO
>>>>>> votes then they are probably not a good candidate. That's what I would have
>>>>>> thought as well.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> However, after last year's election I was extremely surprised to see that
>>>>>> even the top-5 candidates which all got over 70% support also got 2-3 NO
>>>>>> votes each:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014_detailed_results
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't understand why someone would vote NO for those 5 people as charter
>>>>>> members given track record. I can only imagine that not everybody interprets
>>>>>> the "NO" vote to mean the same thing...
>>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm pretty sure of that Daniel, and we only can try to improve that
>>>>> being well explicit on the instructions but still many people don't
>>>>> read the explanations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I remember watching someone votes (no name, just his/her votes) and I
>>>>> was surprised of seeing a lot of NOes and thinking "he has not
>>>>> understood what we wanted to mean by a YES/NO/Abstain".
>>>>> 
>>>>> We'll try this year to improve the instructions on the voting, definitely.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Peter Baumann
>>>> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>>>>  www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>>>>  mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
>>>>  tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>>>> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>>>>  www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
>>>>  tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
>>>> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Board mailing list
>>>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Morissette
> http://www.mapgears.com/
> T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
> 
> http://evouala.com/ - Location Intelligence Made Easy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>
> Subject: Re: [Board] motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter membership more exclusive
> Date: 22 June 2015 19:11:51 BST
> To: board at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> I'm very glad to see people speaking up now.
> 
> We do have time, in fact if we needed to we can spend another month on this (last year's voting didn't start until 19 July).  I began this process earlier this year, on 25 May, because yes I saw this debate coming, I wanted to give time for change to occur.  So, I am against deferring any change until next year (as you know, that is never a successful way to make change).  I'm happy to use the extra time to decide on the 2015 process if we need to.
> 
> 
> -jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 2015-06-22 2:48 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>> There is definitely room for improvement to make sure the foundation is
>> protected from a hostile take over which is becoming very unlikely given
>> today's number of charter members anyway. But if we are still worried,
>> then giving more importance to the NO votes in the calculation of the
>> threshold is likely part of the solution. I just don't know what it the
>> perfect solution would be.
>> 
>> 
>> Unfortunately, after looking at last year's numbers again I don't think
>> that the proposed change to move to 50% YES votes is much better than
>> the current situation unless we better educate our voters since based on
>> last year's results it would just draw an arbitrary line in the middle
>> of the list. Last year all candidates got 39% or more... that 39% is
>> very close to 50%, and 29 of the 64 candidates were in the 45% to 55%
>> range and most of them being people mostly active and visible at the
>> local level in their own country or community. Many of them would have
>> been turned down just because they are not popular enough outside of
>> their home country to get an extra 5% votes to meet the arbitrary 50%
>> line, that doesn't feel very inclusive to me.
>> 
>> 
>> Short of having a better short term solution in the next week or so, my
>> vote as charter member would be to keep the rules unchanged for this
>> year and proceed with the 2015 election. ... and as we say every year...
>> those who care enough to change the process (and I'm not one of them),
>> should start working on new rules early in the fall to avoid repeating
>> this process discussion again next sprint.
>> 
>> Daniel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2015-06-22 1:19 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>>> Or someone else suggested:
>>> 
>>> (YES-NO) / (YES+NO+ABSTAIN)
>>> 
>>> But something doesn’t seem right the way we measure it now.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bart
>>> 
>>>> On 22 Jun 2015, at 19:10, Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Actually the way we measure now (% support) there is no difference
>>>> between a NO and an ABSTAIN? Should we not leave out ABSTAIN from the
>>>> total population?
>>>> 
>>>> So:
>>>> 
>>>> YES / (NO + YES)  = percentage support?
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Bart
>>>> 
>>>>> On 22 Jun 2015, at 19:06, Peter Baumann
>>>>> <p.baumann at jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> just to speak it out: of course NOs are one way of upvoting a
>>>>> favourite candidate.
>>>>> -Peter
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 06/22/15 19:02, Jorge Sanz wrote:
>>>>>> 2015-06-22 18:09 GMT+02:00 Daniel Morissette
>>>>>> <dmorissette at mapgears.com>:
>>>>>>> Margherita makes a very good point here, that if someone gets
>>>>>>> multiple NO
>>>>>>> votes then they are probably not a good candidate. That's what I
>>>>>>> would have
>>>>>>> thought as well.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> However, after last year's election I was extremely surprised to
>>>>>>> see that
>>>>>>> even the top-5 candidates which all got over 70% support also got
>>>>>>> 2-3 NO
>>>>>>> votes each:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014_detailed_results
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't understand why someone would vote NO for those 5 people as
>>>>>>> charter
>>>>>>> members given track record. I can only imagine that not everybody
>>>>>>> interprets
>>>>>>> the "NO" vote to mean the same thing...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm pretty sure of that Daniel, and we only can try to improve that
>>>>>> being well explicit on the instructions but still many people don't
>>>>>> read the explanations.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I remember watching someone votes (no name, just his/her votes) and I
>>>>>> was surprised of seeing a lot of NOes and thinking "he has not
>>>>>> understood what we wanted to mean by a YES/NO/Abstain".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We'll try this year to improve the instructions on the voting,
>>>>>> definitely.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dr. Peter Baumann
>>>>> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>>>>>  www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>>>>>  mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
>>>>>  tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>>>>> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>>>>>  www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
>>>>>  tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
>>>>> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola
>>>>> incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur
>>>>> cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail
>>>>> disclaimer, AD 1083)
>>>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>
> Subject: Re: [Board] motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter membership more exclusive
> Date: 22 June 2015 19:46:18 BST
> To: board at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> 
> The CRO, Vasile, has been working on a poll for the community through our LimeSurvey instance, regarding the voting threshold.  I believe he is shortly announcing this to the community.  (we spoke this morning about this)
> 
> -jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 2015-06-22 3:11 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>> 
>> I'm very glad to see people speaking up now.
>> 
>> We do have time, in fact if we needed to we can spend another month on
>> this (last year's voting didn't start until 19 July).  I began this
>> process earlier this year, on 25 May, because yes I saw this debate
>> coming, I wanted to give time for change to occur.  So, I am against
>> deferring any change until next year (as you know, that is never a
>> successful way to make change).  I'm happy to use the extra time to
>> decide on the 2015 process if we need to.
>> 
>> 
>> -jeff
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2015-06-22 2:48 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>> There is definitely room for improvement to make sure the foundation is
>>> protected from a hostile take over which is becoming very unlikely given
>>> today's number of charter members anyway. But if we are still worried,
>>> then giving more importance to the NO votes in the calculation of the
>>> threshold is likely part of the solution. I just don't know what it the
>>> perfect solution would be.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately, after looking at last year's numbers again I don't think
>>> that the proposed change to move to 50% YES votes is much better than
>>> the current situation unless we better educate our voters since based on
>>> last year's results it would just draw an arbitrary line in the middle
>>> of the list. Last year all candidates got 39% or more... that 39% is
>>> very close to 50%, and 29 of the 64 candidates were in the 45% to 55%
>>> range and most of them being people mostly active and visible at the
>>> local level in their own country or community. Many of them would have
>>> been turned down just because they are not popular enough outside of
>>> their home country to get an extra 5% votes to meet the arbitrary 50%
>>> line, that doesn't feel very inclusive to me.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Short of having a better short term solution in the next week or so, my
>>> vote as charter member would be to keep the rules unchanged for this
>>> year and proceed with the 2015 election. ... and as we say every year...
>>> those who care enough to change the process (and I'm not one of them),
>>> should start working on new rules early in the fall to avoid repeating
>>> this process discussion again next sprint.
>>> 
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2015-06-22 1:19 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>>>> Or someone else suggested:
>>>> 
>>>> (YES-NO) / (YES+NO+ABSTAIN)
>>>> 
>>>> But something doesn’t seem right the way we measure it now.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Bart
>>>> 
>>>>> On 22 Jun 2015, at 19:10, Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually the way we measure now (% support) there is no difference
>>>>> between a NO and an ABSTAIN? Should we not leave out ABSTAIN from the
>>>>> total population?
>>>>> 
>>>>> So:
>>>>> 
>>>>> YES / (NO + YES)  = percentage support?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Bart
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2015, at 19:06, Peter Baumann
>>>>>> <p.baumann at jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> just to speak it out: of course NOs are one way of upvoting a
>>>>>> favourite candidate.
>>>>>> -Peter
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 06/22/15 19:02, Jorge Sanz wrote:
>>>>>>> 2015-06-22 18:09 GMT+02:00 Daniel Morissette
>>>>>>> <dmorissette at mapgears.com>:
>>>>>>>> Margherita makes a very good point here, that if someone gets
>>>>>>>> multiple NO
>>>>>>>> votes then they are probably not a good candidate. That's what I
>>>>>>>> would have
>>>>>>>> thought as well.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> However, after last year's election I was extremely surprised to
>>>>>>>> see that
>>>>>>>> even the top-5 candidates which all got over 70% support also got
>>>>>>>> 2-3 NO
>>>>>>>> votes each:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014_detailed_results
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't understand why someone would vote NO for those 5 people as
>>>>>>>> charter
>>>>>>>> members given track record. I can only imagine that not everybody
>>>>>>>> interprets
>>>>>>>> the "NO" vote to mean the same thing...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure of that Daniel, and we only can try to improve that
>>>>>>> being well explicit on the instructions but still many people don't
>>>>>>> read the explanations.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I remember watching someone votes (no name, just his/her votes) and I
>>>>>>> was surprised of seeing a lot of NOes and thinking "he has not
>>>>>>> understood what we wanted to mean by a YES/NO/Abstain".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We'll try this year to improve the instructions on the voting,
>>>>>>> definitely.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dr. Peter Baumann
>>>>>> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>>>>>>  www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>>>>>>  mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
>>>>>>  tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>>>>>> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>>>>>>  www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
>>>>>>  tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
>>>>>> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola
>>>>>> incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur
>>>>>> cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail
>>>>>> disclaimer, AD 1083)
>>>>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20150623/99bc58a9/attachment.html>


More information about the Board mailing list