[Board] About 2018 Board Election results

Angelos Tzotsos gcpp.kalxas at gmail.com
Sun Dec 9 05:58:38 PST 2018


Hi,

I fully support Vasile and his decisions as CRO.
As a nominee in the election process, I am happy that after the 
extension we had more candidates than the seats available, because this 
is what democracy is about.
If the board members were elected "by default", one could argue that 
they would not have been legitimized by the election process and that 
would affect the decision process in the future.

Best,
Angelos

On 12/9/18 3:02 PM, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I think Vasile summarized properly the Board position too. We were worried
> that there were not enough candidates to ensure a real election. The CRO
> proposed to extend the period, as it has been done in the past on other
> circumstances, and we agreed it was the proper way to proceed. There was no
> official loomio vote because the CRO has the authority to decide on
> election procedures, but informally we agreed on the solution.
>
> As a side note, on this community we tend to be very relaxed on deadlines,
> as long as it means the community benefits from it (most of the mistakes
> are due to time zones or technical problems). Should we be more strict?
> Could be. But I still think this is not the case, as this was a decision
> consultated by the board and the board agreed, even if we considered the
> CRO independent enough to do the decision alone.
>
> Have a nice day!
> María.
>
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:54 PM Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


-- 
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20181209/9ae30688/attachment.htm>


More information about the Board mailing list