[OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM

[Jonah Sullivan]

Thanks for taking the time to think about this Ed. I think being inclusive
is a great idea, but I don't see much benefit of having a large but
disengaged member pool.

I haven't put any thought into charging membership dues, not sure if it
would be worth the administrative hassle since the organisation is based
around the conference.

On Sun, 8 Sep. 2019, 13:54 Edoardo Neerhut, <ed at mapillary.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for moving the discussion forward on this important topic.
>
> *Membership criteria*
> Regarding the membership base and how one qualifies, I broadly agree that
> we need a system that encourages active participation. My only concern is
> around the idea of "positive attributes". The term itself seems a bit
> ambiguous and even the selection criteria outlined in the linked OSGeo wiki
> seem a bit too vague for my liking. I think a system like this is
> vulnerable to manipulation and not as merit based as we would like.
>
> OSMF is at the other end of the spectrum with a membership fee but no
> responsibilities.
>
> As we are in the early days of our community, I think we would benefit
> greatly from having a more open membership criteria, but with clear
> obligations once a member, even if this was *simply voting each year*. My
> worry that a more selective criteria with "positive attributes" might
> discourage new people from joining and limit future leadership potential.
>
> *Timing of the election*
> Similarly, I agree with John and Cameron that an AGM at the conference
> followed by an election shortly would allow new people to step up and do so
> after due consideration. The date of the election should be fixed well in
> advance so that people consider it seriously at the AGM and conference and
> initiate any discussions they may want to have regarding the
> responsibilities of membership and directorship.
>
> Also:
>
>    - As John mentioned, having the election during the conference
>    unfairly disadvantages those unable to attend.
>    - Elections can be both a positive and negative event depending on how
>    they play out. We should reduce the risk of any negative fallout by
>    separating the two events.
>
> I'll need to put more thought into the actual running of the election. It
> might be useful to have someone from OSMF or OSGeo join one of our board
> meetings and shed light on how they run theirs.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 06:40, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In the interest of moving this forward, perhaps we can focus on the
>> membership question for now.
>>
>> So far we have a couple of suggestions on the table:
>>
>>    1. a model somewhat based on OSGeo's charter membership, using
>>    participation and positive attributes as criteria for nomination
>>    2. free membership that requires an action each year to remain a
>>    member, even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial
>>
>> Option 1 has featured more heavily in this discussion, am I right to read
>> that as having general support? Any arguments against? Any other proposals
>> we should consider?
>>
>> If we have general support for option 1, let's start fleshing it out.
>> I've started a Google doc [1] for collaborative editing, we can move this
>> to the wiki when it's done. It's open for commenting, if you want to help
>> edit, please ask for access.
>>
>> Board & community input please.
>>
>> Cheers
>> John
>>
>> [1]
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_6Ru8Xy5jGIuWXysuIJQwQonmjhtlpmHbqVwtOsUNA
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20190908/c569cc9f/attachment.html>