<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Thanks Paul, Dimitris and Peter for your thoughts.<br>
<br>
Comments inline.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/06/2014 4:31 am, Paul Ramsey
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACowWR0TUgcQ=gn7mCabspW+0Cm50vXTF6HODURiT+u74ArVpg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.aag.org/cs/membership/individual_membership">http://www.aag.org/cs/membership/individual_membership</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.aag.org/cs/membership/individual_membership/dues">http://www.aag.org/cs/membership/individual_membership/dues</a>
Both simpler, and better for the bottom line of OSGeo, if you want to
be a member, sign up as a member, collect your t-shirt, see you @
foss4g.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes Paul, "pay for membership" is simple, but I'd argue that the
value of OSGeo and OSGeo communities is the volunteer time we
contribute, and "pay membership" wouldn't capture that.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACowWR0TUgcQ=gn7mCabspW+0Cm50vXTF6HODURiT+u74ArVpg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Dimitris Kotzinos <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kotzino@csd.uoc.gr"><kotzino@csd.uoc.gr></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all,
some thoughts on the proposed changes on the Charter Member election
process.
I will divide my comments into two parts, first some issues about the
process itself and then some comments on the proposed changes.
(A) the process per se:
1/ I think that whatever change in the election process should be validated
by the Charter Members themselves, so I fully agree with Arnulf that we need
to vote on that and not just the Board. And of course this contains no
offense for the Board; it is just that I think that it is fair that the body
who is affected by the changes to take the decisions.
Moreover the charter members are the ones who elect the Board so it seems
quite awkward to me that the smaller governing body will take such decision.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
This is a worthy comment, and something we can work toward. I've
heard many people over the years suggest that OSGeo doesn't make
enough use of our Charter Members.<br>
The OSGeo constitution defines the role of charter members to vote
once a year for new charter members and to vote for the board. With
the trialing of limesurvey for voting for these elections, the
process of setting up a vote will be easier so we could ask charter
members to vote on other issues as well.<br>
However, until a new process is put in place, we should continue
with the old process, which has been to vote in a board, and then
have the board vote on day to day matters.<br>
(Community comments such as this email thread helps the board form
an opinion, which hopefully reflects the feelings of the community).<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACowWR0TUgcQ=gn7mCabspW+0Cm50vXTF6HODURiT+u74ArVpg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
2/ I think that whatever decision taken should be enforced in next year's
elections; members need some time to evaluate that. So it is good to
conclude this process now but enforce it from next year.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Historically, despite suggestions being discussed at the end of each
election, we get to the next election and find that no one has
updated the process.<br>
Our aim this time is to be proactive, make a decision and put it
into place.<br>
Sure, what we decide probably won't be perfect, but hopefully it
will be better than last year.<br>
The aim here is for continuous improvement.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACowWR0TUgcQ=gn7mCabspW+0Cm50vXTF6HODURiT+u74ArVpg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
(B) the proposed changes:
Before discussing the proposed changes I think that we should understand
where the current system has failed. Do we have cases where recognized
community leaders failed to be elected? If so please bring them forward. I
doubt so though since if I recall correctly the last two years all charter
member nominations were accepted without voting!</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
While I understand your sentiment, I'm wary of going back to look at
evidence from previous years:<br>
1. I think it inappropriate to bring up examples of specific people
who were denied access to charter membership, probably due to
insufficient positions.<br>
2. There is quite a bit of work involved in compiling such evidence.
(Would you like to volunteer to do the research?)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACowWR0TUgcQ=gn7mCabspW+0Cm50vXTF6HODURiT+u74ArVpg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Moreover the notion of a
"recognized community leader" that cannot be elected as a charter member is
a contradiction by itself. So why change?</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Note that our definition of a "recognised osgeo community leader" is
someone who has already been <b>voted</b> into a prominent role
within OSGeo. So I don't think this is a contradiction.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACowWR0TUgcQ=gn7mCabspW+0Cm50vXTF6HODURiT+u74ArVpg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I am not against the idea of having some people becoming OSGEO Charter
Members ex officio but for one I do not like the idea of having members of
different categories and secondly I need to have a look at the data: how
many of the committee chairs, PSC members, official Chapter chairs are not
already OSGEO Charter members</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Interesting question. Would you like to do the research?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACowWR0TUgcQ=gn7mCabspW+0Cm50vXTF6HODURiT+u74ArVpg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> (and they wanted to be and failed)? Why are
they not nominated to become ones and to be voted?
And I don't see how the problem described here:
"In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been a little
contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations from high caliber
members of our community, and insufficient positions to accept them all.
This typically results in unnecessary disappointment and dissent."
will be resolved: again we will have some people not becoming Charter
Members if the seats are not enough. So some of us will still be
disappointed, etc. So if the numbers are the same the only difference I see
is that now we choose beforehand whom to disappoint and people working in
the community but in not "official" positions will have less chances to be
elected.
If we want to open up the numbers, this is OK, more seats are offered every
year anyway. But what else?
And of course the first come first served approach if the recognized
community leaders are more than the seats is a bit odd: to lighten up the
discussion I cannot imagine people with the finger on the mouse waiting for
the process to open in order to submit there nominations.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
This is a valid concern. Ideally we will have enough positions such
that anyone who qualifies as a "recognised osgeo community leader"
will be accepted, however we are bound by our constitution to accept
between 10% and 1/3 of current charter members, so some how we need
to cap. This is the simplest process I could think of.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACowWR0TUgcQ=gn7mCabspW+0Cm50vXTF6HODURiT+u74ArVpg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Finally, for the voting process I completely disagree with the ability of a
member to vote multiple times for the same person. This removes from the
process the requirement of someone to be widely recognized within the
community and potentially allows "a couple of friends" to elect whoever they
want.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree with you on this, but it is the process we have been
following to date. Maybe next year we can address this and you might
be able to help draft the proposal to have it changed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACowWR0TUgcQ=gn7mCabspW+0Cm50vXTF6HODURiT+u74ArVpg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I think that the discussion is interesting and thanks to the board and
Arnulf :) for initiating it!
I think that other solutions could also be considered if we feel that we
need to differentiate on how charter members get elected, e.g. agree on a
bonus percentage that a "community leader" gets when he goes through the
standard process, so he still has to be voted by many...
I apologize for the length of the e-mail and thanks for listening,</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
And thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope to see you next year
getting involved in improving our voting process further.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACowWR0TUgcQ=gn7mCabspW+0Cm50vXTF6HODURiT+u74ArVpg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Best regards,
Dimitris Kotzinos
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/06/2014 4:58 am, Peter Baumann
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53A332E1.4050703@jacobs-university.de"
type="cite">Hi all, <br>
<br>
good - and important! - discussion! <br>
Being Charter Member I am somewhat concerned: <br>
<br>
- I am surprised that the common democratic procedure of election
is perceived as creating "dissent". <br>
- yes, democracy is expensive, but generally it is considered
worth the effort. <br>
- is "lifelong membership" compatible with community
participation? <br>
- "Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders" seem to get determined in a
very special, selective way (as compared to standard election
procedures). <br>
</blockquote>
For the selection of "Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders" we have
specifically selected groups who have established voting processes
for selecting their own leaders (such as graduated OSGeo projects).<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:53A332E1.4050703@jacobs-university.de"
type="cite"> <br>
Altogether, the criteria seem to make OSGeo a self-sustaining
group: <br>
insiders will remain insiders for a lifetime, outsiders
will...well, face a hurdle. <br>
<br>
So the contrary of "open". <br>
</blockquote>
Yes, membership is not open to everyone, people need to be voted in.
The authors of our OSGeo constitution based the constitution on many
other prior open source communities. As I understand it, the general
feeling at the time, which I think still holds, is that it is more
valuable to retain the experience and advice of prior Charter
Members than there is in retiring these members out.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:53A332E1.4050703@jacobs-university.de"
type="cite"> <br>
Just an idea: what about applying the OSGeo incubation checklist
to OSGeo itself to determine feasible procedures? <br>
</blockquote>
I'm not sure the incubation checklist which is designed for software
projects is a good match for applying to a community such as OSGeo.
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F +61 2 9009 5099</pre>
</body>
</html>