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

Mon Oct 30 10:31:36 PDT 2017

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.northumberl
>> andnationalpark.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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20171030/c8f47fde/attachment.html>