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

[Angelos Tzotsos]

Hi Cameron,

I agree that we are discussing details, so no objection to the wording.

On 07/05/2014 12:26 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Hi Angelos,
>
> I think your suggestion and mine are very close and we are now 
> "splitting hairs" about details. We could use an absolute minimum 
> number of votes, maybe 10 as you suggest, but I prefer "5% of charter 
> members who voted" which I think is more robust long term.
> Unless you (and others) have a very strong objection to the wording, 
> I'd like to stick with the "5%" wording.
>
> I'm going to resubmit the updated proposal to the board to vote on so 
> we can move onto elections. I appreciate all the feedback as I think 
> it has made the proposed process much better.
>
> On 2/07/2014 8:12 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> On 07/01/2014 11:02 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/07/2014 10:32 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
>>>> On 07/01/2014 01:40 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Some specific answers below:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> In my opinion this threshold should be applied on the overall 
>>>> number of charter members, i.e. 5% of 180.
>>>> Someone should have an absolute minimum of Yes votes (e.g. 10) in 
>>>> order to be elected, not a relative one.
>>> Hi Angelos,
>>> Your comments are valid. My reason for setting the number of votes 
>>> low is:
>>> 1. I think it more important to err on being more inclusive than less.
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> 2. Over the next few years, with the relaxed selection criteria, I'd 
>>> expect OSGeo Charter Membership to increase substantially over the 
>>> next few years, so 5% this year would require 5 votes, next year 
>>> probably 10 or 15, following year, probably 20 to 30.
>> Then lets forget the percentage and set an absolute number, like how 
>> many members second the nomination (e.g. 5-10)
>>
>>> 3. If active membership does drop off, having a % of votes rather 
>>> than absolute number would make it easier for charter membership to 
>>> revitalize itself later.
>>>
>> Angelos
>>
>>
>


-- 
Angelos Tzotsos
Remote Sensing Laboratory
National Technical University of Athens
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos