[OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections

[Vasile Craciunescu]

Dear Cameron, Arnulf, Jeff and Gert-Jan,

Thank you for your appreciations! It was an interesting exercise of 
digital archeology :)

Dear all,

I'm waiting until tomorrow for more feedback/ideas. Then I will draft a 
survey, I will send you the questions and ask for your opinion and 
finally, if all agree, the survey will be sent to all charter members.

Best,
Vasile

On 7/2/15 3:29 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Thanks Vasile for all your excellent research. Great job (and an
> interesting read).
>
> Are you planning to draft sample questions and tick box answers to be
> commented on before being put to the vote?
>
> Cheers Cameron?
>
> On 30/06/2015 10:39 pm, Arnulf Christl (OSGeo) wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Vasile,
>> thanks from here too for this very useful recap. I posted it more or
>> less verbatim to the discussion page of the Charter Members article in
>> the Wiki:
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Talk:Membership_Process
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>> on the OSGeo Wiki we currently have 605 "self categorized" OSGeo members:
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Category:OSGeo_Member
>>
>> This is the best we can currently do for anybody who is interested in
>> becoming an OSGeo member apart from subscribing to the Discuss mailing
>> list or being nominated as a "Charter Member" to be then elected by an
>> eclectic group of geospatial whizzes.
>>
>> Just to reiterate: "Charter Members" are usually those who set up the
>> charter of an organization:
>> "A charter member of an organization is an original member; that is, one
>> who became a member when the organization received its charter."
>> - From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter
>>
>> After signing the Charter they can continue to participate actively in
>> the organization, go away or even die - without any of this actually
>> changing the Charter.
>>
>> What is OSGeo's Charter? My guess is that the section "About the Open
>> Source Geospatial Foundation" contains what we would consider our
>> Charter.
>>
>> As a legal body incorporated in Delaware, USA we needed to implement how
>> the newly founded organization should support this charter. This has
>> been written into the bylaws:
>> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
>>
>> In "ARTICLE VII Members" of our bylaws we specify how we plan to manage
>> membership. There is no talk of "Charter Members", just "members".
>> Looking at what we did almost 10 years ago it was probably the right
>> thing to do at that time. But it may be good for an update. My
>> suggestion is to change this section into regular membership and remove
>> the self-pollinating aspect. At the same time we could update our
>> "About" section into a proper Charter and then go ahead and operate as
>> any regular member association.
>>
>> On a personal note: I do not see any danger of a hostile take-over. This
>> was an important catch we put into the DNA of OSGeo when we founded it.
>> There never was a hostile take-over and I cannot really see it coming.
>> We are big enough to not need to fear this anymore. And we would make
>> OSGeo a much more open and welcoming organization if we moved away from
>> this somewhat strange self pollinating system.
>>
>> I am not really passionate about this and only consider it an overdue
>> maintenance patch to how OSGeo functions. If there is no broad interest
>> I am happy to drop the ball, otherwise I am as happy to help build a
>> more appropriate member mechanism.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Seven
>>
>> - -- Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)
>> OSGeo President Emeritus
>> OSGeo Founding and Charter Member
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Arnulf_Christl
>>
>>
>> On 30.06.2015 13:24, Gert-Jan van der Weijden - Stichting OSGeo.nl wrote:
>>> Vasile: thanks for this very useful recap.
>>>
>>>
>>> A few remarks from a relative newbie as I am ;-)
>>> - the name of the wiki page with the charter members is already called
>>> "voting members" ;-)
>>> - the charter member list grows and grows. Over the year only 1 person
>>> retired from the charter member list
>>> - charter membership seems to drift towards a title of honour,
>>> instead of a
>>> mechanism for proper board elections and prevent a hostile take-over
>>> - the voting participant rate for the board elections is low over the
>>> years:
>>> 70% - 85%. I would expect 100%!
>>>
>>>
>>> Therefore, I'd suggest a voting membership with:
>>> - a fixed number of seats (e.g. 72)
>>> - with a certain numbers of seats reserved for each region [51],
>>> (e.g. 6*6,
>>> and thus 36 remaining "wildcard"-seats).
>>> - in case of not enough candidates, or note enough votes for a candidate
>>> from a certain region, seats can remain empty
>>> - a 3 term (instead of a lifetime membership, re-election possible)
>>> - and a mechanism in which not all seats are elected every year, but
>>> one-third every year, and thus all seats once every three years
>>>
>>>
>>> Just my 2 eurocents,
>>>
>>> Gert-Jan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [51] http://bl.ocks.org/jsanz/raw/779f9b9954b92461fa50/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>>> Van: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
>>> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] Namens Vasile Craciunescu
>>> Verzonden: maandag 29 juni 2015 15:08
>>> Aan: OSGeo Discussions
>>> Onderwerp: [OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> First of all, please accept my apologies for the delay in sending this
>>> message to you and, again, apologies for the length of the message.
>>>
>>> Let's start with some basic information about the charter member
>>> elections
>>> followed by a little bit of history. I know that many of you already
>>> know
>>> the details but the community is quite large now and I find this recap
>>> useful.
>>>
>>> OSGeo charter members [1] are the blood of our foundation. They are
>>> voted
>>> into this category by the other charter members. They have the right
>>> to vote
>>> in elections for other charter members and for board members. They are
>>> required to act in accordance with the goals and bylaws [2] of the
>>> Foundation and have the following responsibilities:
>>> (1) annually vote for OSGeo Board members; (2) annually vote for new
>>> OSGeo
>>> Charter members and (3) be aware of and protect against a hostile
>>> takeover
>>> of OSGeo.
>>>
>>> Each year new charter members are nominated (nomination process is
>>> open for
>>> the entire community, not only to the existing charter members) and
>>> elected
>>> by existing OSGeo charter members, in a process supervised by the
>>> board [3]
>>> and operated by the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) [4].
>>> Non-active members can retire or be removed by board decision. An
>>> updated
>>> list with all the current and past charter members is available on OSGEo
>>> website [5]. During the years the charter members selection procedure
>>> suffered minor and major changes as you can see bellow.
>>>
>>> OSGeo was created in early 2006 [7]. One of the main outcomes of the
>>> first
>>> OSGeo meeting (held in Chicago) [7] was a list of 21 foundation voting
>>> members (most of them high profile figures of the existing FOSS4G
>>> projects) and 5 interim directors [8]. Later that month, the first real
>>> elections started with a public nomination call [9] followed by a
>>> vote [10]
>>> and the election of new 24 voting members [11]. This was followed by
>>> a new
>>> nomination call [12] for the remaining four open seats in the board.
>>> After a
>>> tight vote, the first four candidates [13] from a list of eight [14]
>>> join
>>> the board.
>>>
>>> In June, after a f2f meeting, the new board redefined the OSGeo
>>> membership
>>> categories as we know today [15]. The voting members are now called
>>> "Charter
>>> Members" and they have the right to vote in elections for other charter
>>> members, and for board members. The other member categories
>>> (participant &
>>> members) have the right to nominate charter board members but they
>>> cannot
>>> cast votes. In March 2007, with the approach of the new charter members
>>> elections, discussion started about the ned for a CRO position, the
>>> number
>>> of new seats (and by who/how the number is decided) and the voting
>>> procedure
>>> (e.g. nomination and voting period extend, right to designate a
>>> proxy, the
>>> number of votes each charter member can submit) [16]. In June 2007 the
>>> nomination process [17] started with the aim to elect 15 charter members
>>> (the number was arbitrarily selected by the board). During the vote
>>> [18],
>>> each charter member was entitled to cast votes up to 15 names from the
>>> nomination list. It was possible to cast more than one vote to the same
>>> nominee (even all 15 votes).
>>>
>>> The same voting procedure was used for the 2008 charter member elections
>>> (including the number of seats, 15) [19]. However, the nomination list
>>> included 18 great names [20] and people start asking to accept all the
>>> names. Again, the method to pick the number of open seats was questioned
>>> again. Some people ask not to change the rules during the game and to
>>> select
>>> only 15 names. And 15th it was. Ironically, "there was a four-way tie
>>> for
>>> last place. So, the 15th person on the list was selected by a random
>>> process." [21].
>>>
>>> In 2009 the elections [22] followed the same rules but the number of
>>> seats
>>> was raised to 30. Though, as before, the charter members were able to
>>> cast
>>> only 15 votes. All nominated members [23] were elected as the number was
>>> bellow 30.
>>>
>>> 2010 [24], brought an important change. Due to lack of time for proper
>>> organization, it was decided to switch the election order and elect the
>>> charter members after the board elections. This way, the new charter
>>> members
>>> were not able to vote in the same year were elected. Also, the board
>>> decided, in a f2f meeting, to "add 10% of existing members each year
>>> - 10
>>> new members this year." [25]. The charter member were able to cast a
>>> maximum
>>> of 10 votes using the same rules as before. However, a number of voices
>>> noted that the list of nominee [26] had many great names and it was a
>>> pity
>>> to cut down to only 10. Some suggested that is time to make some
>>> changes in
>>> the charter member selection procedure (e.g. [27]).
>>>
>>> In 2011 [28] the elections order remain the same as in 2010. The board
>>> agreed on opening 20 seats (20% - [29]). Each member were able to cast a
>>> maximum of 20 votes using the same rules as before. In the end, 21
>>> members
>>> were elected (all nominees [30]) as it was a tie for the 20th slot
>>> and that
>>> still fits within the limits of 20% new charter members set by the
>>> board.
>>> The voting participating rate was 65% and some voices ask about the
>>> charter
>>> member retirement procedure.
>>>
>>> In 2012 [31] the election schedule return to the initial order: first
>>> charter member and then board. 20 seats were open and the board
>>> decided to
>>> accept all 22 nominations [32] as it was inline with OSGeo bylaws (is
>>> possible to add between 10% and one third of the existing charter
>>> membership).
>>>
>>> 2013 [33] elections followed the 2012 scenario. 30 seats open. 37
>>> nominations received [34]. The board decided to accept all the
>>> nominations.
>>>
>>> 2014 [35], the year of the change for OSGeo charter member elections.
>>> First big change was the implementation of an electronic voting
>>> system [36]
>>> to replace the e-mail voting. The selection process itself was also
>>> revised
>>> from the bottom. Each charter member received an email with a
>>> personalized
>>> url to access the electronic voting system. Each charter member can vote
>>> with Yes/No/Abstain for all nominated charter members.
>>> Each candidate with more YES votes than NO votes, and greater than 5% of
>>> voting charter members voting YES for them, were included as new charter
>>> members. The result was that all 64 nominations [37] were accepted as
>>> Charter members. For the first time, the board decided to publish the
>>> elections results on the internet with detail numbers of
>>> YES/NO/ABSTAIN for
>>> each nominee [38]. Some concerns were raised about the low threshold of
>>> voting charter members voting YES for a nominee.
>>>
>>> Now we are getting to the current year. In 2015 [39], the elections will
>>> follow the same pattern: charter members and then board members. For the
>>> charter members elections, the OSGeo president, Jeff McKenna, propose to
>>> change the the above mentioned threshold from 5% to 50% [40]. Jeff did a
>>> simulation on the last year votes with the new threshold and
>>> discovered that
>>> 45 nominations would be accepted, versus all 64 nominations. The item
>>> was
>>> briefly introduced during the board meeting held in June [41].
>>> Due to the lack of time, no detailed discussions or vote follow [42].
>>> However, a motion on the item was introduced to the board via e-mail
>>> [43].
>>> The board was not able to reach an consensus with six votes to
>>> approve, one
>>> abstain and two to reject the motion. Some other charter members join
>>> the
>>> discussion but also with split opinions. Some are pro for a more
>>> exclusive
>>> charter membership and some are for a easy way to join. A
>>> consultation with
>>> the entire community was demanded. For more details see thread "[Board]
>>> motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter membership more
>>> exclusive" on the board mailing list [44]. The thread expanded on the
>>> OSGeo-discuss mailing list and more concerns were raised. Like: the
>>> YES/NO/Abstain options should be better explained to the charter
>>> members;
>>> ask the charter members to vote on the threshold; the algorithm to
>>> measure
>>> the support for a nominee should be modified as Abstain votes are
>>> counted
>>> right now as No votes. The "YES / (NO + YES) = percentage support"
>>> [45] and
>>> "(YES-NO) / (YES+NO+ABSTAIN) = percentage support" [46] formulas were
>>> suggested; Arnulf suggested that "charter member" term was misused by
>>> OSGeo
>>> in the past and the foundation should embrace a regular membership
>>> mechanism
>>> and even ask for a low annual membership fee [47].
>>>
>>> I hope I did not make any mistakes and also did not left important
>>> information outside this recap. I so, please correct/add points. Charter
>>> member elections process is vital to OSGeo, therefore we should proceed
>>> further with great care. The time is also not on our side as we need
>>> to do
>>> this before the board elections. Until now we have the following
>>> options:
>>>
>>> a. Go with the unmodified 2014 selection process; b. Change the
>>> threshold
>>> percent; c. Change the algorithm that measure the support for a
>>> nominee; d.
>>> Change both b and c; e. Change the selection process from the ground
>>> (e.g.
>>> move to regular membership); e. Other options not expressed until now.
>>>
>>> Please take some time, think about the existing voting system and if/how
>>> should be improved, and express your opinion here. Thanks to the
>>> electronic
>>> voting system we can put your options into a survey and all vote for the
>>> best solution.
>>>
>>> Warm regards from sunny Bucharest,
>>> Vasile
>>> (your 2015 CRO)
>>>
>>> P.S. Two personal notes after I did some research about the
>>> selection/voting
>>> process in other open source software organizations: 1) all of them
>>> seem to
>>> have difficulties in finding the best solution (apparently such solution
>>> does not exist); 2) OSGeo is a very transparent organization.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership
>>> [2] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
>>> [3] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process
>>> [4] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Chief_Returning_Officer
>>> [5] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/members/voting_members.html
>>> [6]
>>> http://www.osgeo.org/content/news/news_archive/open_source_geospatial_founda
>>>
>>> tion_initial_press_release.html.html
>>> [7]
>>> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/meetings/2006_02_04/meeting.html
>>> [8] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Charter_Members
>>> [9] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-February/000008.html
>>> [10] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-February/000073.html
>>> [11] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000132.html
>>> [12] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000167.html
>>> [13] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000314.html
>>> [14]
>>> http://www.osgeo.org/content/news/news_archive/board_nom_20060314.html
>>> [15] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership
>>> [16] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-March/001558.html
>>> [17] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-May/001964.html
>>> [18] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-June/002003.html
>>> [19] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2008
>>> [20] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2008
>>> [21] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2008-June/003789.html
>>> [22] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2009
>>> [23] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2009
>>> [24] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2010
>>> [25]
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meeting_Barcelona_2010#Meeting_Minut
>>>
>>> es
>>> [26] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2010
>>> [27] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2010-November/008312.html
>>> [28] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2011
>>> [29] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meeting_Denver_2011#Minutes
>>> [30] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2011
>>> [31] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2012
>>> [32] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2012
>>> [33] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2013
>>> [34] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2013
>>> [35] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014
>>> [36] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Electronic_Voting
>>> [37] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2014
>>> [38] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014_detailed_results
>>> [39] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2015
>>> [40] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-May/012863.html
>>> [41] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2015
>>> [42] http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2014-09-13.log
>>> [43] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012912.html
>>> [44] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/thread.html
>>> [45] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012945.html
>>> [46] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012946.html
>>> [47] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-June/014374.html
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAlWSjfQACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b2JJACeLfsFZzEGCbQK9bCkfyn8kO5S
>> mnIAnjZRlV9rRG6DFrZg/PpsVDj8uJ8l
>> =/hLJ
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Vasile Crăciunescu
geo-spatial.org: An elegant place for sharing geoKnowledge & geoData
http://www.geo-spatial.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/geo-spatial