[OSGeo-Discuss] Board Geographic Diversity

[Tim Bowden]

On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 20:54 -0700, Dave Patton wrote:
> P Kishor wrote:
> 
> > I believe pegging Board-membership to geography is a good thing
> 
> > I also believe that while one can contribute as much while being an
> > ordinary member as opposed to a charter or a Board member (I became a
> > charter member only a couple of months ago), Board membership could be
> > an important label to find local support. After all, if there were no
> > difference then why even have these different labels? When one is
> > going around drumming up support, having a position carries a heft.
> 
> Perhaps there is some resistance to "artificially" creating
> a geographically diverse Board, but who say that is the
> only option? There could be "OSGeo Regional Representatives",
> who are elected, and who, by definition, represent specific
> geographic regions, without those people necessarily also
> being board members. They could have an advisory role to
> the Board.
> 

Just to add my own $0.02, Like so many others I am firmly of the opinion
that designated regional seats on the board is a /really bad idea/.  If
there is strong regional grassroots activity, then board makeup will
over time will reflect this.

IMHO Dave's suggestion has some serious merit, with a slight change; If
we have healthy local chapters, I don't see why the chapter chairs (or
whatever they are called) can't fill this role.  They're presumably
selected in a manner acceptable to those they represent, probably
reasonably active and would be a good fit as regional reps.  I'm not
sure how formal we should make it, but it makes sense to me as a
functional solution.


Regards,
Tim Bowden