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

Thu Jul 3 16:53:21 PDT 2014

Hi Cameron,

I agree that on re-read the new wording covers this.

Bruce

From: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com<mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, 4 July 2014 9:01 am
To: Bruce Bannerman <B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au<mailto:B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au>>
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 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

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,  W www.lisasoft.com<http://www.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><mailto: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.org<mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>http://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,  W www.lisasoft.com<http://www.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<http://www.lisasoft.com>,  F +61 2 9009 5099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140704/412baa41/attachment-0002.html>