[Board] Current election cycle discussion

[Venkatesh Raghavan]

On 10/22/2017 1:31 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Agreed Sanghee individuals must be respected in our organization. Venka the
> board has focused primarily on option (a) - so that was kind of our opinion
> was it not?
>
> I understand we are stuck between two different options, a request for the
> board to act, and the wishes expressed here to not interfere with the CRO
> performing their office.

In the elections that I have seen, there are dates specified for withdrawal
before the voting process begins. Such deadline for withdrawal was not
specified in case of the board election, since no one expected a withdrawal
at any stage.

Since the voting ballot has nine names on it and several members have
already voted using this ballot, it may not be appropriate to come up 
with the
new ballot excluding the name of the candidate who has withdrawn mid-way of
voting.

So, I feel, that the best option for the CRO would be to continue with 
the voting
using the present ballot. Which would mean that the request for 
withdrawal is
held in abeyance by the CRO until the voting is completed.

I fully trust our CRO to take a prudent decision on this matter and
will standby CRO's decision.

My own opinion is that the request for withdrawal from nominee could be
held in abeyance by the CRO.

Venka

>
>
>
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 21 October 2017 at 20:49, Sanghee Shin <shshin at gaia3d.com> wrote:
>
>> I think both CRO and board do not have the right not to accept the request
>> of withdrawal from any nominees at least that is based on free will.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> 신상희
>> ---
>> Shin, Sanghee
>> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
>> www.gaia3d.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *보낸 사람: *Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
>> *보낸 날짜: *2017년 10월 22일 일요일 오후 12:35
>> *받는 사람: *Venkatesh Raghavan <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>
>> *참조: *board at lists.osgeo.org
>> *제목: *Re: [Board] Current election cycle discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Venka, that agrees with my own understanding and thoughts.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21 October 2017 at 20:27, Venkatesh Raghavan <
>> raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
>> Comments are inline.
>>
>> On 10/22/2017 12:12 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>
>> Thanks everyone:
>>
>>
>>
>>     - Maria Brovelli: A
>>
>>     - Vasile Craciunescu: n/a
>>
>>     - Jody Garnett: A
>>
>>     - Anita Graser: -
>>
>>     - Helena Mitasova: A
>>
>>     - Venkatesh Raghavan: A
>>
>>     - Sanghee Shin: A
>>
>>     - Michael Smith: B publicly, C privately, A agree
>>
>>     - Angelos Tzotsos: consider meeting with 24th hours or C
>>
>>
>>
>> I also note that Maxi has made a request for the board take responsibility
>>
>> and not accept Jeff's withdrawal as a candidate. Venka your email to
>>
>> discuss indicated support for this idea, can you elaborate on your thinking?
>>
>>
>> It is not for the board to accept or not accept.
>> It is for the CRO to accept or not accept, I think.
>> The CRO can, perhaps announce that candidates
>> are not allowed to withdraw mid-way of the election
>> process.
>>
>> Board can take responsibility to request the CRO to
>> make an announcement that candidates cannot withdraw
>> mid-way of election.
>>
>> How to handle matter related to Jeff's can be taken up by the
>> new board after the election process in over.
>>
>> Venka
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21 October 2017 at 10:38, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
>>
>> would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility
>>
>> of the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to
>>
>> our CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road
>>
>> and I feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.
>>
>>
>>
>> A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has
>>
>> our trust (this is of course assumed)
>>
>>
>>
>> B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
>>
>> difficult job and has our trust.
>>
>>
>>
>> C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is
>>
>> realistically available.  We have also accepted the CRO’s comittment and
>>
>> balance our respect for their integrity and our concern for this election
>>
>> placing more responsibility and attention on their role then usual.
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
>>
>> subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss.
>>
>> I suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the
>>
>> influence that board has, especially in the case of elections which very
>>
>> carefully a hands off affair.
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Board mailing list
>>
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>