[Board] resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers

[Jody Garnett]

Venka, you have failed to acknowledge the reasons why Michael Smith and
myself did not vote for MOT3 - and skipped straight ahead to other motions.

Please stop; respect others; and try and build consensus.

--
Jody Garnett

On 8 November 2016 at 15:02, Venkatesh Raghavan <
raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I am voting "disagreed" for the present MOT6 on loomio because;
>
> a) I have already voted "agreed" for "MOT3: President and Vice-President
> be selecting
> from current board" and also explained my views in my earlier mail to this
> list [1].
>
> b) I think the President and regional Vice-President should be able
> to vote on motions tabled at the board meetings. This is presently
> possible only for elected board members.
>
> I am also for continuing our current practice of appointing our charter
> members
> (or external members, although there is no precedence for this) as
> Officers for other committee (marketing, incubation, SAC, Geo4All, UN,
> etc.)
> and software PSCs.
>
> Current board members Helena, Angelos and Anita were nominated as regional
> Vice-President at our last board meeting. Anita had declined. Therefore,
> I would like to propose the following new motions.
>
> MOT8: Helena to continue as regional Vice-President for the rest of
> her term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
> Maria at the board meenting held on 3 Nov. 2016)
>
> MOT9: Appoint Angelos as our new regional Vice-President for the rest of
> his term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
> Maria at the board meeting held on 3 Nov. 2016 and also earlier on loomio)
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2016-November/014703.html
>
>
> On 11/9/2016 3:56 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
> We have now exhausted the three proposals put forth in the IRC meeting.
>
> I would like to resume discussion, asking all board members to listen now
> and compose a motion that that can be approved. In several cases the voting
> process is shutting down conversation at the expense of communication.
>
> Please take a moment to read why each motion was rejected, and what you
> could do to open up communication with the parties that were forced to vote
> "no".
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing listBoard at lists.osgeo.orghttp://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/c2517ea0/attachment.htm>