[OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Cameron Shorter]

Hi Bruce,
I agree that a nominating member should explain why a candidate is worth 
voting for (rather than a candidate promoting themselves). I think the 
words below address that. If you can think of a better way of expressing 
your intent, can you please suggest alternative wording.

On 3/07/2014 10:34 am, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
> Cameron,
>
> There is perhaps one other aspect of the process that you may wish to 
> review.
>
> This is the requirement for nominees to ‘beat their own chest’ saying 
> how good they are.
>
> I think that this step is not required. What needs to be said, should 
> be said by the person who is doing the nomination.
>
> There are also cultural issue to consider, where people do not feel 
> comfortable doing this step.
>
> We also discussed this last year on Discuss [1].
>
> Bruce
>
> [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2013-July/012079.html
>
>
>
> From: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com 
> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, 1 July 2014 8:40 pm
> Cc: Discuss OSGeo <discuss at lists.osgeo.org 
> <mailto:discuss at lists.osgeo.org>>, "board at lists.osgeo.org 
> <mailto:board at lists.osgeo.org>" <board at lists.osgeo.org 
> <mailto:board at lists.osgeo.org>>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting 
> OSGeo charter members
>
> Thanks all for your comments. I've updated based on your feedback to:
>
> /1a. Charter member to nominate potential new charter member(s) (as 
> before).//
> //
> //1b. A person who meets the "Positive Attributes for Charter Members" 
> [1]//, may ask an charter member who can vouch for the person to 
> nominate them.
>
> //2. Charter members then vote (in/out///*abstain*//) nominated 
> charter members. This will be different to prior years, as we 
> previously voted in a fixed number of members for a larger selection 
> pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of 30). For this year, I 
> propose we have a "Yes/No" vote. Ie, if we have a list of 30 
> candidates, we will ask all charter members to vote Yes or No against 
> each candidate. Each candidate with //*more YES votes than NO votes as 
> well as greater than 5% of charter members who voted*//will be 
> included as new charter members.//
> //
> //3. Charter members would be guided to select candidates who fit the 
> "Positive Attributes for Charter Members" [1] //
> //
> //4. There will be no limit to the number of new charter members who 
> can be selected. This will require an update of 
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process//
> //
> //[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes/
>
> ---
> Some specific answers below:
> On 30/06/2014 6:39 am, Alex Mandel wrote:
>> The only reservation I have is on the 50% Yes/No, but maybe I just need
>> a clarification.
>> I see plenty of people potentially voting Yes/No/Abstain(just not
>> marking a particular candidate).
> Good suggestion. Text updated to "move YES votes than NO votes".
>
> On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
>> Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate 
>> before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe? 
> Good suggestion. Added "..as well as 5% of charter members who voted".
> So if there are 180 charter members, and say 100 vote, that would mean 
> you would need 5 YES votes.
>
> On 30/06/2014 11:51 am, Eli Adam wrote:
>> If the goal is to have an inclusive charter membership, then some of
>> these voting methods would potentially better accommodate all nominees
>> based on an evaluation of
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes.
>>
>> Even brought up that most OSGeo projects work on some form of
>> consensus.  50%+ is nothing like consensus.  I would support requiring
>> much less opposition for approval.  Perhaps no more than 5-10 "no"
>> votes.  For me, to vote "no" I will need to know the person very well
>> and know that they lack all or most of these,
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes  or I
>> will need to know that they actively think or behave counter to one or
>> more of those characteristics.
>>
>> Angelos brought up the idea of a minimum level of support.  That could
>> be combined with a minimal level of opposition.
> Good thoughts. I think there is a balance to be struck between being 
> exclusive and inclusive, and I think it better to err on being more 
> inclusive. Hopefully adding in "..as well as 5% of charter members who 
> voted" should address your concerns.
>
> On 30/06/2014 8:34 pm, Steven Feldman wrote:
>> If we want to avoid "/establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy/” then 
>> perhaps we need to consider ways of becoming a mass membership 
>> organisation rather than one governed by a self selecting elite group. 
> I don't think we need worry to much about "/establishing a 
> self-sustaining oligarchy/”. By setting the above criteria, I think 
> that anyone who fits the "Positive Attributes" will now find it easy 
> to become a charter member.
>
> On 30/06/2014 8:34 pm, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>
>> Should we consider separating the Charter Members who could continue 
>> to be acknowledged for their contributions to OSGeo (but maybe by the 
>> whole membership not just existing Charter Members) from the process 
>> of voting for the board? If we want to be open and inclusive we need 
>> to empower a larger group of contributors to vote for the people who 
>> set policy and manage our organisation. Perhaps it could be a 
>> requirement for board membership that candidates have already been 
>> voted as charter members by the wider membership.
>>
>> We could go for something like the OSM Foundation where membership at 
>> £15/yr entitles you to vote for the Foundation Board or we could go 
>> for a free membership category with some qualifying criteria.
>
> Adding membership dues for membership breaks our Bylaws, (see below) 
> and is not something that I'm ready to champion changing before the 
> next election. (I expect a lawyer would be required to make this happen).
> Adding another membership category could be added, but lets take this 
> as a separate issue.
>
>
> On 30/06/2014 6:58 pm, Even Rouault wrote:
>> Not answering on behalf of Peter, but a potential idea to solve those issues
>> would be to combine Cameron proposal of a yes/no vote on each nominee + allow
>> people to self-nominate them (as you do in political elections). That should
>> help solving the "self-sustaining oligarchy"
>> We could add a rule that a self-nominee must at least be seconded by at least X
>> charter member(s). Such a rule would not particuarly shoking to avoid unrelevant
>> candidates (e.g. in France to be candidate to the presidential election you must
>> have at least support from at least 500 already elected persons : mayors,
>> deputies, etc... But such a rule is regularly contested by "small" candidates.)
>> Or we could not make it a rule, but allow charter members to express their
>> support for the candidature of a self-nominee.
>
> Good idea. I've adjusted a bit and added:
> /1b. A person who meets the "Positive Attributes for Charter Members" 
> [1]//, may ask an charter member who can vouch for the person to 
> nominate them.
> /I'm hoping that the revised text is simpler to implement, and doesn't 
> break existing bylaws.
> /
> /
> On 30/06/2014 7:08 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
>
> Peter,
> I was hoping to keep things simple to administer. I'm hoping the other 
> comments above addressed your ideas.
>
> On 25/06/2014 9:31 pm, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> Following the community discussion, I further researched OSGeo's 
>> foundation documents, (in retrospect I should have done this earlier).
>>
>> Of particular relevance to current discussion is our ByLaws:
>>
>> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
>> /Section 7.1. Admission of [Charter] Members. An initial group of up 
>> to forty-five (45) persons shall be admitted as the initial [charter] 
>> members of the corporation upon the affirmative vote of the Board of 
>> Directors of the corporation. Thereafter, to be eligible for 
>> [charter] membership, a person must be nominated by an existing 
>> [charter] member of the corporation pursuant to a written document in 
>> such form as shall be adopted by the Board of Directors from time to 
>> time. The nomination must be included in a notice to the [charter] 
>> members at least ten (10) days in advance of the meeting at which the 
>> [charter] members will vote on the applicant’s admission. Proposed 
>> [charter] members shall be admitted upon the affirmative vote of the 
>> members of the corporation./
>>
>> This section implies that the proposal below of automatically 
>> accepting "Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders" is unconstitutional, 
>> as charter members need to be voted into the role by existing charter 
>> members.
>>
>> It also implies that while a separate paid membership category could 
>> be created, paid members would still need to be voted into a charter 
>> member role by existing charter members.
>>
>> The ByLaws don't mention limiting the number of new charter members. 
>> This criteria seems to have been introduced as a Membership Process 
>> by the 26th Board meeting:
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process
>> /The number of new members will be between 10% and one third of the 
>> existing charter membership count as decided by the board/.
>>
>> Such a statement created by the board, could be updated by the board, 
>> and as such the board could agree to accept an unlimited number of 
>> new charter members.
>>
>> So I'm now thinking that our election process can be simplified to:
>>
>> 1. Charter member to nominate potential new charter member(s)
>> 2. Charter members then vote (in/out) against all nominated charter 
>> members
>> A suitable criteria for determining whether a nominee qualifies is 
>> listed here: 
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes
>> 4. Nominees with a majority of votes are included as new Charter Members
>>
>> On 15/06/2014 9:52 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>> Within 2 weeks we intend to start our annual process for selecting 
>>> new OSGeo charter members.
>>>
>>> In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been a 
>>> little contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations from 
>>> high caliber members of our community, and insufficient positions to 
>>> accept them all. This typically results in unnecessary 
>>> disappointment and dissent.
>>>
>>> In response, the OSGeo board has agreed to trial tweaking the voting 
>>> process. The aim is to automatically accept recognised OSGeo 
>>> community leaders, while continuing with our existing process which 
>>> attracts the many valuable community members who contribute in other 
>>> ways. Community comments are encouraged, and will be considered over 
>>> the next week.
>>>
>>> *Design guidelines:*
>>>
>>> * We want a process which is simple to understand and implement.
>>> * We want a process which encourages recognised OSGeo community 
>>> leaders to become OSGeo charter members, while continuing to accept 
>>> members from the many other valuable OSGeo roles.
>>> * We want a process which is difficult to abuse.
>>> * For the first iteration, we should err on being more selective in 
>>> our criteria, with potential widening of selection criteria in 
>>> future years.
>>>
>>> *Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders**
>>> *
>>> OSGeo aims to provide OSGeo Charter Membership to all recognised 
>>> OSGeo community leaders who are nominated. Hopefully, sufficient 
>>> positions are available. If there are more candidates than 
>>> available, then membership will be allocated to the first to be 
>>> nominated. Remaining nominees will be automatically offered to go 
>>> through the standard voting process.
>>> Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders are defined as people who have 
>>> been *voted* into a position of authority within official OSGeo 
>>> projects and committees, where the voting community includes at 
>>> least 3 OSGeo charter members.
>>>
>>> Acceptable roles are currently limited to:
>>> * Project Steering Committee member of a Graduated OSGeo Project
>>> * Chair of Official Local Chapter
>>> * Chair of an OSGeo committee
>>>
>>> The application process for recognised OSGeo Community Leaders is 
>>> the same as for other nominees.
>>>
>>> Full text of our processes are at:
>>> * http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process_2014
>>> * http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014
>
> -- 
> Cameron Shorter,
> Software and Data Solutions Manager
> LISAsoft
> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>
> P +61 2 9009 5000,  Wwww.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>
> On 30/06/2014 11:51 am, Eli Adam wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Angelos Tzotsos<gcpp.kalxas at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> On 06/30/2014 12:07 AM, Daniel Kastl wrote:
>>>>> 2. Charter members then vote (in/out) nominated charter members. This
>>>>> will
>>>>> be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of
>>>>> members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of
>>>>> 30). For this year, I propose we have a "Yes/No" vote. Ie, if we have a
>>>>> list of 30 candidates, we will ask all charter members to vote Yes or No
>>>>> against each candidate. Each candidate with greater than 50% of YES votes
>>>>> will be included as new charter members.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well, I doubt some charter member would vote with "No" for candidates.
>>>> And what if you don't know a candidate well enough or not at all?
>>>>
>>>> So I'm not sure this is really a good idea. I believe the result will just
>>>> be that all candidates will be accepted ... as in previous years.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>> Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate before
>>> acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe?
>> If the goal is to have an inclusive charter membership, then some of
>> these voting methods would potentially better accommodate all nominees
>> based on an evaluation of
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes.
>>
>> Even brought up that most OSGeo projects work on some form of
>> consensus.  50%+ is nothing like consensus.  I would support requiring
>> much less opposition for approval.  Perhaps no more than 5-10 "no"
>> votes.  For me, to vote "no" I will need to know the person very well
>> and know that they lack all or most of these,
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes  or I
>> will need to know that they actively think or behave counter to one or
>> more of those characteristics.
>>
>> Angelos brought up the idea of a minimum level of support.  That could
>> be combined with a minimal level of opposition.
>>
>> I know that the process needs proceed soon.
>>
>> Eli
>>
>>> Angelos
>>>
>>> --
>>> Angelos Tzotsos
>>> Remote Sensing Laboratory
>>> National Technical University of Athens
>>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> -- 
> Cameron Shorter,
> Software and Data Solutions Manager
> LISAsoft
> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>
> P +61 2 9009 5000,  Wwww.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140704/d3d09841/attachment-0002.html>