[OSGeo-Discuss] Code of Conduct... followup to avoid lobbies

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

I support this idea. It would be analogous to academic journals that 
require authors to declare any conflicts of interest.

We might also adopt a rule, if we do not already have one, that, when 
voting, members should act only to further the goals of OSGeo. While I 
do not expect that it would happen, I would not like to see an member 
vote for a client or employer in exchange for consideration. Adopting an 
explicit rule would, in my view, help members resist external pressure.

We must also balance the risk of lobbies with the need to support 
members who are promoting OSGeo within their large organisations. Having 
several members in an organisation allows them to support each other in 
what can otherwise be a lonely position. Promotion of OSGeo through 
mentoring and development of new members is one of our most valuable 
forms of corporate outreach. In my view, any new rules should support 
and not discourage these outreach activities. Transparent disclosure may 
be sufficient and better than proscriptive rules.

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 19/12/2018 00:45, Tom Chadwin wrote:
> Hello all
> 
> Perhaps if we request a declaration of any relationship (commercial or personal) between nominator/seconder and nominee, that would make everything transparent, and allow members to judge for themselves whether such relationships cast doubt on the validity of the nominee?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Tom

-- 
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben at transient.nz>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand