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

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Mon Jun 23 15:17:31 PDT 2014

Thanks for your feedback Dimitris,
You have made some valuable comments.
I'm also surprised that there has only been a few comments on this 
thread, although I'm hopeful that this equates to a general feeling that 
the proposal as crafted is reasonably close to group opinion.

The proposal as it stands aims to address some of the concerns raised 
from previous years, and leaves the opportunity for others to improve it 
still in future years. (In particular, after testing with this upcoming 
vote, I see the potential to make greater use of charter member voting 
using tools such as limesurvey).

On 24/06/2014 4:01 am, Dimitris Kotzinos wrote:
> Dear Cameron,
> thanks for the reply and the comments to my previous e-mail. It also 
> gave me a chance to revisit the rules around the charter members.
> I was expecting this issue to be further discussed within the 
> community and i am a bit disappointed with the evolution of the 
> discussion, given the fact that the board will make a decision shortly.
> I am happy that you agree with me in most of the cases; I should also 
> point out that my comments aim at improving the voting process this 
> year (why wait for the next) unless this year's decision does not 
> accept any alterations.
> A few more comments:
> -- Voting of charter members: I agree that in the rules is stated that 
> the Charter Members are voting for new Charter Members and the board. 
> Then maybe we should consider the members to vote (I think that this 
> can be considered based on the bylaws)?
> If we agree with the need to validate this kind of decisions from a 
> larger body, then a solution can be found.
> -- For the proposed changes and in the request for data to validate 
> them; I cannot understand the comment that anyone who disagrees should 
> bring up data that validate the current status. Usually the one who 
> proposes changes should bring along some data to prove that the 
> changes are needed and are in the proper direction. But for me there 
> is no need since the last two years, whoever applied for Charter 
> Member status was accepted. So I cannot see who was rejected.
> So I still do not see where the need for such changes comes from and 
> what exactly we expect to improve with this.
> I think that the proposed process creates a small bias and mainly 
> gives the message that the Charter Members do not vote wisely enough 
> to let the breadth and depth of the Foundation Membership to be 
> represented. And I think that this is simply not true. I am also 
> afraid when a future board might decide to have the 3/4 of members ex 
> officio and so on ... But this can be just me.
> So no need to recycle the discussion, thanks again for the response - 
> I am sure that the board will consider the fact that whatever 
> objections come in good faith and I do trust that the board will take 
> a wise decision.
> Best regards,
> Dimitris
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
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

More information about the Discuss mailing list