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

[Andrea Giacomelli]

Hi -

I have been following this discussion with interest...however lately I
don't always follow OSGEO Discuss in a timely manner, so I don't have all
the elements fresh with me and I apologise.

As a former vice-president and external relations guy for the Italian OSGEO
Chapter, and having before and after been involved in other community-based
organisations (both virtual and with feet-on-the-ground)...

my question is: is it better to invest time and energy to define a code of
conduct to avoid lobbies, or to acknowledge that the behaviour termed by
some Western civilizations as "lobbying" is pretty much human and should
just be factored in a process (while acknowledging that there are also many
individuals and organisations that *do not* use it and have the same right
to play their game)?

I don't see a big issue with lobbies as long as they are declared.

Andrea Giacomelli
Culture, Environment, Open Innovation
http://www.pibinko.org
info at pibinko.org
+39 331 7539228
P. IVA: 01582480537


Il giorno mar 18 dic 2018 alle ore 21:41 Ben Caradoc-Davies <
ben at transient.nz> ha scritto:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181219/fcdea47e/attachment.html>