[OSGeo-Discuss] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of view

Sun Nov 5 11:53:05 PST 2017

Vasile - good work, thanks for it, you did great.

J

po 30. 10. 2017 v 18:32 odesílatel Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
napsal:

> I think the correct link is this one -
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2016-8-24#OSGeo_charter_member_election_procedure
> .
>
> But I agree, although this issue was discussed across several meetings
> (notably the issues and stratagy discussed here
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Face_to_Face_Meeting_2016) the end
> result was not communicated to our membership and came as a surprise for
> the 2017 elections.
>
> I like the new procedure, although I am sorry it is more work for the CRO.
> I am surprised at the perception that it is more inclusive - I believe it
> is a little less inclusive then the prior procedure (since a single -1 vote
> can now cause a candidate review). Both systems do not have an adequate way
> to ask for more information, or discuss a nomination, without it being
> viewed as a personal criticism. There are a couple of ideas (template for
> nominations, encouraged asking questions) but it will be a careful balance.
>
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 30 October 2017 at 09:57, Vasile Craciunescu <vasile at geo-spatial.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Tom,
>>
>> I understand the way you are feeling and I know that are reasons for
>> that. I remember that I had some hard time when I did wrote that part of my
>> email. However, this was reported my many persons and I had to include this
>> in my message. Anyway, I don't think that a single old OSGeo charter member
>> will consider the new comers as lite members. The quality of the new
>> members is proven by the important number of seconding messages and by the
>> fact that no veto was raised. In the early years of OSGeo, the membership
>> process was a very selective one and this was also a subject of criticism.
>> I can understand why moving from one extreme to another can cause such
>> reactions. Personally I'm very in favor of an inclusive system but one with
>> an voting mechanism. This is something for the community and the board to
>> decide. The actual system is also a big burden to the CRO (hundreds of
>> emails and wiki edits) and also a stress for our mailing list.
>>
>> I can only speculate why they did not used our mailing list to express
>> their opinion. Most of them are old OSGeo members and I think they did not
>> want to sound like they are contesting the membership process (already
>> started) or that they contest the already nominated persons. Not a single
>> one contested the persons that were nominated and I'm 100% sure that was a
>> genuine care not to dilute the importance of our membership position. Also,
>> most of the messages were not sent to CRO email but over IRC/Google
>> Hangouts and some during face to face meetings, just before the elections,
>> at FOSS4G in Boston.
>>
>> I will conclude by reiterating again that all the critics were on the
>> membership process and not a single one about the new members. Of course,
>> those critics should not be expressed now, just before, during or after the
>> nomination process, but immediately after the board decided to change the
>> membership process. The board decided to make the change during the face to
>> face meeting in Bonn in 2016 [1]. At that time, the board did a poor job in
>> communicating this change to the community. Actually only those members
>> that are manually checking the meetings wiki pages or the OSGeo Loomio
>> instance were aware of the change. I was also a board member at that time
>> and I would like to apologize for not communicating better.
>>
>> Best,
>> Vasile
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2016-8-04
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/30/17 2:27 PM, Tom Chadwin wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Vasile and all
>>>
>>> I've thought long and hard about whether to reply or not, but it has
>>> been bothering me, so I guess I must.
>>>
>>> However, during the nomination
>>>> period, many of our members considered the new membership process way
>>>> too inclusive/lite, causing a diminution in the importance of the
>>>> charter member position.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As one of the intake of this year's new charter members, I find this
>>> both insulting and upsetting.
>>>
>>> My recommendations for the future board are to: (a) Change the
>>>> existing membership process with another one more balanced, that assures
>>>> both inclusiveness and a consistent weight for the charter member
>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where does that leave those of us elected as charter members this year?
>>> Are we "lite" members because "many" existing members felt strongly enough
>>> about protecting the exclusivity of their position to complain privately to
>>> the CRO, but not strongly enough to express that opinion openly so that it
>>> could be discussed?
>>>
>>> I really feel for Vasile that people expressed such a potentially toxic
>>> opinion, thereby absolving themselves of the responsibility of putting
>>> their names to it, while presumably expecting him to raise it himself, as
>>> he has so professionally done.
>>>
>>> I was extremely proud to have been nominated and generously seconded.
>>> Recognition and reputation are significant parts of open-source currency.
>>> However, this attitude creates the impression that membership is a
>>> self-serving clique.
>>>
>>> I would have been happy to have gone through a more rigorous nomination
>>> process. However I, and many of my colleagues - many much, much more
>>> respected than me - did not, through no fault of our own.
>>>
>>> Let me make this clear: this issue and the way in which it has been
>>> raised, coupled with the white western board election results (concern
>>> about which I absolutely share), and also the unpleasant flavour of the
>>> board election through the situation with Jeff are making me question
>>> whether I should retain the charter membership I was so proud to attain.
>>>
>>> Yours in frustration
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Chadwin, ICT Manager
>>> Telephone: 01434 611530 Mob:
>>> Web: www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk<
>>> http://www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/>
>>>
>>> IMPORTANT NOTICE - Disclaimer - This communication is from
>>> Northumberland National Park Authority (NNPA).The Authority’s head office
>>> and principal place of business is Eastburn, South Park, Hexham,
>>> Northumberland, NE46 1BS, United Kingdom. If you are not the intended
>>> recipient(s) please note that any form of disclosure, distribution, copying
>>> or use of this communication or the information in it or in any attachments
>>> is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
>>> communication in error, please delete the email and destroy any copies of
>>> it. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do
>>> not necessarily represent those of NNPA.Contractors or potential
>>> contractors are reminded that a formal Order or Contract is needed for NNPA
>>> to be bound by any offer or acceptance of terms for the supply of goods or
>>> services Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of
>>> any virus or other defects which might affect any computer or IT system
>>> into which they are received, no responsibility is accepted by the NNPA for
>>> any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use thereof.
>>> Computer systems of this Authority may be monitored and communications
>>> carried out on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the
>>> system and for other lawful purpose.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20171105/7bec4da7/attachment.html>