[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo Governance

[Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)]

Dear Members of OSGeo,
we have an important issue on governance coming up again and again. It
suggests that OSGeo Board decisions should be complemented by votes from
the Charter Members when "important" and "strategic" decisions have to
be taken. Something like this:

[snip]
>> For such important decisions, I think that it would maybe
>> worth making Charter members vote too, just like to get an
>> major orientation decided by 120 people instead of only 8.
[snip]

Initially this sounded like a good idea to me so we discussed this in
Denver and then again in Seattle at the last f2f board meetings plus on
the list and during regular IRC board meetings. We have come to a
different conclusion and want to explain why and ask for comments.

Introducing another level of voting introduces a hierarchy to OSGeo
which we have so far avoided and which we should - in my personal
opinion - continue to avoid. We have committees for all important areas
of work. If we lack a committee any member can suggest to form it. Most
decisions are taking in the committees and they are pretty open to
everything. Some committees function better, some not so - but this is
entirely up to the regular members who make up the committees.

We have a functioning board of directors for some of the day to day
operations and to approve or reject decisions taken by committees. This
is a health check and makes sure we do not go astray. The board is
recruited and elected by trusted Charter Members. This is their role and
it is their only role. There is not need for another role at this level.
If any regular member wants to become active, go for it. Same for ex
board members. Whenever they think the current board is wrong they can
say so. And they can suggest how to do it better, just like any regular
member.

Whenever a committee does not function but a decision has to be taken
the board steps up and takes over. This is one reason why we have the
board, to keep rolling. All other decisions, especially strategic and
important ones are taken by regular members who do things.

By introducing a new level of decisions - for example the Charter
Members - we gain nothing. Instead we introduce an artificial hierarchy
which does not help anybody. Instead it will discourage regular members
to speak up and become active. And it is anti do-ocratic because it is
easy to say yes or no to a motion but so much harder to formulate that
motion in the first place. We need people who creatively bring up new
things and not decide over what others have done.

Thank you for your attention,
Arnulf

PS:
Apart form this only very few Charter Members actually speak up at all -
a big thank you to those who do! Running a Charter and Board election is
always a major pain and takes weeks to complete. It is impractical to do
this more than once a year.

-- 
The Open Source Geospatial Foundation
Arnulf Christl, President
http://www.osgeo.org