[OSGeo Oceania] membership - elections - AGM
Alex Leith
alexgleith at gmail.com
Wed Sep 25 17:30:38 PDT 2019
Hi All
+1 from me
I like keeping things simple until they need to be more complex!
Cheers,
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 10:26, Bruce Bannerman <
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Ed,
>
> You make some good points regarding dual affiliation with OpenStreetMap.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruce
>
> On 24 Sep 2019, at 19:16, Edoardo Neerhut <ed at mapillary.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree we need to remember our role
> in the international community and be wary of reinventing the wheel.
>
> I wanted to address your point on the structure of membership and
> operating within the international framework. I can think of two reasons
> why we should devise a framework that works best for Oceania which is not
> necessarily the same thing as the current OSGeo membership structure.
>
> 1. OSGeo Oceania was setup as a body to represent and foster the OSGeo
> community, but also OpenStreetMap efforts. On the latter, we are currently
> pending confirmation to become the recognised Local Chapter by the
> OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). OSMF has its own membership structure and
> procedures. We need to consider both if we are to represent both
> communities. I would argue that Melbourne last year proved that the
> FOSS4G + SotM coupling worked well and could be improved upon further. If
> this is to remain the case, our membership structure needs to be appealing
> to both communities.
> 2. We should choose the membership structure that makes sense for our
> community at this point in time. There is a lot to learn and replicate from
> OSGeo, but I don't think we should be a carbon copy of the international
> structure. We have unique characteristics such as diverse economic
> conditions and a relatively small community when compared to Europe/North
> America. I think innovation in the structure of our community can go both
> ways. Both international -> down and local -> up.
>
> There is a lot to consider here in this membership discussion and many
> ways to approach this, so I am appreciating the discussion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 03:03, Bruce Bannerman <
> bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi John and fellow OO Community Members,
>>
>> I’ve now gone through the proposed document and comments either in the
>> document or on this list.
>>
>> Some observations:
>>
>>
>> - We need to remember that we are part of the global OSGeo Community
>> and operate within that community and framework. In my opinion the
>> International OSGeo is where much of the community’s work occurs. OSGeo
>> Oceania provides the regional focus and allows us to coordinate regionally
>> and to communicate global developments and efforts.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Therefore it is not appropriate that we set up a separate framework
>> to replace OSGeo (not that I see that anyone has suggested this).
>>
>>
>>
>> - I see that the main reason for the perceived need for two tiers of
>> membership within OSGeo Oceania (OO) is to ensure that:
>> - We have people as directors of the legal entity who hold
>> positive attributes that we admire. These attributes include:
>> - acting for the greater good of OSGeo Oceania and OSGeo;
>> - active and positive contributions to community activities;
>> and
>> - are of good and ethical repute.
>> -
>> - There is also a secondary requirement as highlighted by
>> Alister: to remove Directors who won’t resign voluntarily from the OO legal
>> entity at the end of their term, or who are not acting in the best
>> interests of either OSGeo Oceania or OSGeo.
>>
>>
>>
>> - As noted by several people, the overheads of managing an additional
>> membership process for OSGeo Oceania (in addition to that required for
>> OSGeo) is likely to be onerous. However, we still need a two tier
>> membership process to protect the best interests of the OSGeo and OSGeo
>> communities and the OO Legal entity.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Therefore in the interest of keeping things simple, I propose the
>> following variant to what has been discussed:
>> - Keep a two tier membership process as outlined in the document.
>> - The main membership categary comprises those who self nominate
>> to be members of the OO Community, by signing up to one of the OSGeo
>> Oceania mailing lists and participate in discussion and activities.
>> - The second Charter Member category automatically comprises OSGeo
>> Charter Members [1] who are also members of the OO Community.
>>
>>
>>
>> - This approach:
>> - negates the need for having OO to manage a separate membership
>> process
>> - makes clear the relationship between OSGeo and OSGeo Oceania.
>> - Uses existing and proven OSGeo contributers of good repute by
>> way of OSGeo Charter Members.
>> - Allows for new OSGeo Charter Members to be proposed from the
>> OSGeo Oceania community within the tried and tested OSGeo Charter Member
>> process.
>>
>>
>>
>> - There will still be the need to:
>> - Define our membership levels and processes
>> - Define and hold an election process (every two years?) to
>> refresh our pool of board members / legal entity directors.
>> - (probably) revise the OO Legal Enity’s Articles of Association
>> to allow for a process for OSGeo Charter Members (within the to be defined
>> Oceania region) to remove non-performing directors etc of the legal entity
>> etc.
>>
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> [1] https://www.osgeo.org/about/charter-members/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 Sep 2019, at 18:29, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks all for a quite robust discussion on this important topic, it's
>> really great to see this much engagement. There seems to be a fair bit of
>> discomfort with the two tier model proposed, and I agree that it may
>> introduce more complexity than we really want. To move forward, I'd like to
>> propose a simplified alternative:
>>
>> - We have a single type of membership that confers voting rights.
>> - To ensure a reasonable level of engagement, while protecting the
>> org against bad actors/hostile takeover/etc, we roughly follow this process:
>> - take nominations for new members
>> - use an eligibility threshold that balances accessibility with
>> genuine engagement
>> - include a ratification step that could be done by the board, or
>> a membership working group (TBD)
>>
>> This doesn't capture all the detail of how this would work, but if it's
>> acceptable in broad strokes, I can update our draft policy and we can work
>> through the details over next couple of days.
>>
>> Any objections?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
--
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20190926/22b5cc73/attachment.html>
More information about the Oceania
mailing list