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

Bart van den Eijnden bartvde at osgis.nl
Mon Jun 30 04:04:34 PDT 2014

Board members need to be charter members already:


Best regards,

On 30 Jun 2014, at 12:34, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> 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.
> 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.
> ______
> Steven
> On 30 Jun 2014, at 09:58, board-request at lists.osgeo.org wrote:
>> From: Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl>
>> Subject: Re: [Board] [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
>> Date: 30 June 2014 08:27:08 BST
>> To: Peter Baumann <p.baumann at jacobs-university.de>
>> Cc: discuss at lists.osgeo.org, "board at lists.osgeo.org" <board at lists.osgeo.org>
>> Hey Peter,
>> so what would be your suggestions to make the process more of the 4 bullet points you mentioned?
>> Best regards,
>> Bart
>> On 30 Jun 2014, at 09:24, Peter Baumann <p.baumann at jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>> Cameron & all,
>>> a lot of serious, involved work is going on on this thread; however, some core issues which I tried to phrase, but Steven (Feldman) expressed much crisper, still remain unaddressed by the currently voted proposal:
>>> Inclusiveness
>>> Democracy
>>> Growth
>>> Openness
>>> The proposal as it stands is in high danger of establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy. 
>>> I am concerned that a body that claims to have international impact (through project branding) high responsibility must be exercised in terms of transparency, openness, and democratic principles. 
>>> -Peter
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140630/50fe776e/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list