[Board] Hic sunt dracones

Mon Nov 7 23:54:51 PST 2016

Dear Board et al.,

I have been following the discussions on who is eligible for what function and how many roles and responsible and accountable people are needed.

It lacks a fundamental element of "why and for what" are these needed. An underlying assumption that there is (a lot of) work to be done is too simple. This work derives from plans and these plans derive from a coherent and comprehensive strategy. 
For a start I refer too my earlier contribution on arriving at a OSGeo strategy and marketing: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Talk:Marketing_Committee

Whether we need individuals in specific roles and how many is primarily dependent on what is expected of them. Which in term is dependent on strategic choices: what is going to be done, why and what resources are needed or available.

While the discussion on officers is continuing I see that the community-activities and resources post hoc focus on Geo4All and UN/international initiatives.
Principal questions are; is this enough to satisfy our 'raison d'etre' (see bylaws), does this address all our internal and external shareholders, what is the expected result etc etc?
And above all, how does this relate to our committees, projects, chapters and community at large?

For example, As a volunteer for marketing I could say; I and the Committee can support the post hoc Geo4All focus. But then other stakeholders than the world of academia and students suffer (due to available time etc). Or I could say that I redirect my own focus. Thus running the risk that our marketing activities become fragmented and ineffective.

Strategic choices are best supported by volunteers when they have been actively involved in the planning process. Not when they derive from post hoc and too incremental strategic planning processes. And certainly not when they derive from a top down strategic planning approach.

'Form follows function' and function follows plan. And planning starts bottom up, following a carefully designed process. Which involves all stakeholders.

I implore you; stop all current discussions on positions, roles and the like. The Board is elected to steer OSGeo away from the waters of irrelevance. Current lack of community involvement and the almost legal/theoretical discussions send out a signal that is perhaps not intended: hair splitting and manoeuvring. For me at least it is disheartening and demotivating: leadership in communities like ours is by example.

Awaiting your views and actions.

Kind regards,
Marc Vloemans

> Op 7 nov. 2016 om 22:29 heeft Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> We have a few more weeks left on our evaluation of loomio:
> - So far I like the fact that it makes making voting clear, it is easier to follow then voting email threads
> - but agree that discussion is not being effective 
> 
> My take is that we need more discussion before these meetings to be effective. With checking the email list (or loomio) every 1 to 2 days communication is not quite smooth enough to form a conversation.
> 
> I quite liked having the breakout session to go over committee guidelines (it was an easier conversation). There is still room to improve, example - ensure we record action items (and follow up on them).
> 
> --
> Jody Garnett
> 
>> On 4 November 2016 at 19:14, Venkatesh Raghavan <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> wrote:
>> Dear Board,
>> 
>> I prefer that discussion on such matters take place on the  board
>> mailing list to which more than a hundred of our members
>> (with or without board experience) are subscribed rather that
>> on loomio where only 10 of our members have currently joined.
>> 
>> My view on "MOT5: Accept nominations for President and Vice-President
>> from members with experience on the board"
>> 
>> a) To the best of my knowledge, the board has not set any precedence
>> wherein the President was not an member elected by our charter members.
>> 
>> b) OSGeo regional Vice-President was new position that was created
>> in January 2016 with the aim of sharing the workload with
>> the President and board. There is no precedence of Vice-Presidents being
>> appointed from outside of our elected* board membership.
>> 
>> (*In some instances we have the precedence of board member
>> vacancies being filled in by members who had secured highest number
>> of  votes among the candidates who contested for the election
>> but had not been been elected)
>> 
>> c) We also do not have a precedence of calling for nominations
>> from outside the Board to fill in the positions of President and
>> newly created positions of regional Vice-Presidents.
>> 
>> d) I feel that for the smooth conduct of the day-to-day affairs
>> of OSGeo, the President and regional Vice-Presidents  should
>> be members *elected* to the board who can cast their valid vote
>> on motions brought before the board.
>> 
>> e) Our bylaws do permit us to appoint officers to our committees
>> from our charter members (as in the case of Treasurer, Secretary,
>> Project Officers, Committees) or even outside of the charter
>> membership.
>> 
>> f) I am all for making full use of the rich experience and tremendous
>> capabilities of charter members (with or without board experience).
>> However, I would like to reiterate my view of the President and regional
>> Vice-President being appointed by the board from among the elected
>> board members.
>> 
>> In light of the above, I strongly disagree with "MOT5:
>> Accept nominations for President and Vice-President from
>> members with experience on the board" and suggest that we
>> continue with our existing practice of appointing the OSGeo President
>> and regional Vice-Presidents from among the elected board
>> members.
>> 
>> I have pasted a link of this mail to the MOT5 thread currently
>> being voted on loomio and have also voted on MOT5 expressing
>> my (strong) disagreement to MOT5 on loomio.
>> 
>> Lastly, I feel that loomio can be used for voting and keeping
>> a public record of our motions, but the discussions on motions
>> can be on the open (in rare cases private) board mailing list.
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Venka
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20161108/280079e8/attachment.htm>