[OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] How to retire membership status?
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Fri Jun 22 14:35:26 PDT 2018
Could each of us please be a bit more measured and forgiving when
responding. It seems a few words have been selected which caused more
offense than intended.
I remember Jeff McKenna once saying that he sometimes takes a step back
from the keyboard for a day or so before responding, and being much
kinder and wiser as a consequence (my memory of Jeff's words). I can
think of a few emails Jeff sent where I think he did just that - his
excellent email describing his reasons for wanting to join the current
OSGeo board comes to mind.
Confrontational tit-for-tat conversation is uncomfortable and if we take
it too far, we will find that productive members of our community will
start silently dropping off.
In response to Sara:
On 22/6/18 7:50 am, Sara wrote:
> Cameron said:
> > We should do our best to ensure opinions are stated respectfully, and
> encourage forgiveness when we slip up and get a bit passionate.
> I'm not sure who you are referring to with this, but please do let me
> know if you mean me.
Sara, I'll discus one statement:
On 15/6/18 4:23 am, Sara wrote:
> Sure, happy to explain further: my request is for information that
> LocationTech already stated publicly was "open", "has always been",
> and would be posted to OSGeo's wiki -- to actually be made open and
> posted to the wiki. If LocationTech either misspoke, lied, or changed
> their mind on that then as a community member/volunteer/sponsor I
> would like to know why. I'm not alone in this, either: I'm just
> today's squeaky wheel. :)
You have a valid concern, and a question which should be asked. But in
asking it, consider how could Marc could answer and save face in the
process. Consider that there might be internal conversations within
LocationTech where someone, maybe Marc, is trying to defend a decision
to back OSGeo. I think this is a leading question into any response by
Marc leading to an implication of guilt. An extreme example of this type
of question is when a man might be asked: "Have you stopped beating your
wife?" Both responses of "Yes" and "No" imply he has beaten his wife.
I'd hope that if you decided to reword your question, you'd avoid
selecting the word "lied", which implies deliberate wrong doing.
Re Marc's comment:
On 15/6/18 10:00 am, Marc Vloemans wrote:
> The demands made by Sara Safavi to give insight into the books are not appropriate. Comparable to a customer asking her employer (Planet Labs) to open their books to a customer.
I think this statement also went too far. I suspect Marc might have felt
threatened by having his employer attacked and replied using a similar
line of argument. Hopefully if he responded again he'd select different
But my bottom line is please lets empathise with the sometimes difficult
situations that our co-volunteers are placed in, and see if we can help
them work through them. Assume best intent, forgive, support, encourage.
Maria, re the Code-of-Conduct, I agree with Christian. Rewriting it to
create rules which consider all future opportunities for human conflict
is utopian, impractical and ultimately unachievable. There have been a
huge number of person-hours which have been put into the numerous
Code-Of-Conducts which our OSGeo Code-Of-Conduct was based upon. I think
we keep our Code-of-Conduct as simple as possible, and rely on our
underlying morals, ethics, and collective intelligence to address
concerns as they arise.
On 22/6/18 10:24 pm, Christian Willmes wrote:
> I do not think this is about the CoC. It is about if and how a valid
> request by a community member is handled/answered (or not).
> This is a matter of transparency and openness on the one side, and
> assumed things like respect, manners, decency, or just civil good
> behavior of holding to a given word/promise.
> Marc can for sure just say, I/we do not want to publish the record. If
> there are no valid understandable reasons given for not publishing
> them, even if promised otherwise, OSGeo can say, ok thanks for letting
> us know, and draw their due consequence from this.
> Improving the CoC is good, but for this case it does not really
> matter, I think. Everybody can see, that there were unnecessary
> offense given and taken... how could the best CoC in the world help
> prevent this situation?
> Am 22.06.2018 um 12:51 schrieb Andrea Aime:
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:51 AM, María Arias de Reyna
>> <delawen at gmail.com <mailto:delawen at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I think this email, cited by Sara Safavi, from Marc Vloemans
>>  is just unbelievable and thus unacceptable to this community.
>> Personally I agree with you that it was an uncomfortable
>> situation easy to misinterpret. I wasn't comfortable either
>> reading it. (me, the person, not the board)
>> Agreed, I was neither.
>> The thing is, we still have this "assume good intent" clause on
>> the CoC that makes it kind of useless on the gray area.
>> I would suggest revising the CoC then, otherwise all the talk about
>> supporting diversity is kind of done in vain imho
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Discuss