[Board] About 2018 Board Election results

[Till Adams]

Dear @all,

I totally agree with Vasile here. I do not see any problems, as there
was only an extension of the nomination period, not of the vote itself.
That means, that all candidates had the same chances, when the actual
vote was started.

Also the board was involved and none of them disagreed.

@Gerald: I wonder a little, that you did not insist at the point when
the extension of the nomination period was alerted. In my eyes, that
would have been the correct time to raise your hand. Doing that after
the vote is a little like the vote didn't go as planned, so I'm
protesting now.

Just my sunday-comment... ;-)

Regards, Till



Am 08.12.18 um 09:15 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
> Dear Gérald,
>
> Until the board will officially present a position on the issue raised
> by you, please let me express CRO point of you, as CRO position was
> involved in this matter.
>
> 1. CRO initiated the deadline extension. This was done in good faith,
> taken in consideration the best interest of OSGeo. In this case, we
> consider that OSGeo credibility and the credibility of the entire
> voting process was in risk, having elections with 4 nominations for 4
> vacancies. Deadline were extend in past elections (also this year), by
> CRO decision, due to technical problems or just to allow more people
> to vote. Nobody complained about this. We also do not see this terms
> to be so strict. To quote the Board Election Procedure[1] "The
> nomination period should be approximately 1 week long.". In well
> justified situations, CRO should be able to change the deadlines.
>
> 2. OSGeo board was privately consulted (board-priv mailing list) on
> the deadline extension. It's true, no formal votes were recorded but
> nobody from the board expressed a different opinion.
>
> Best,
> Vasile
>
> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Election_Procedure
>
>
> On 12/8/18 7:01 AM, Gérald Fenoy wrote:
>> Dear OSGeo Board of Directors,
>> I would like to express my afraid about the validity of the recent
>> board election and also make suggestion to ensure that democratic
>> (aspect) sanctity of the election process is maintained.
>>
>> 1) Did the board authorize the decision to extend the nomination
>> period? Even if this was authorized, I think it is highly improper to
>> extend nomination deadline once the nomination process has already
>> started.
>>
>> 2) Was the decision to extend nomination period only made by the
>> CRO's? If that was the case, this is also grossly improper since CROs
>> are only mandated to conduct the voting process and not change the
>> rules of the election especially after the election process started.
>> At least this is my understanding.
>>
>> Considering the two points raised above, I strongly suggest that the
>> people nominated after the initial deadline should not be counted.
>> Their votes should be divided among the four candidates who were
>> nominated before the initial nomination deadline and the new board
>> members should be declared from among the four nominees. The other
>> option is to cancel the board election and start the voting process
>> again including only the people that were nominated in time.
>>
>>
>> Gérald Fenoy
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Djay
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board