[OSGeo Oceania] OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

Thu Sep 3 19:59:30 PDT 2020

Thanks for this John.

I agree that board discussions should be public as the rule. 

That said, there a few issues where public disclosure is not appropriate, e.g. deliberation on how to address a code of conduct violation, discussion of commercial in confidence issues such as tender responses, etc.

We have the example from our parent organisation, OSGeo, where the board list is public. If someone is interested in board issues, discussions and deliberations then they can subscribe and monitor discussions, contributing if required. They also have the board-private list for sensitive discussions.

Kind regards,

Bruce

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 10:53, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Martin & Alex, I appreciate your response. Alex, it sounds like what you're proposing is more or less a return to the spirit of the original Terms of Reference. Ultimately, I'm less concerned about what makes me comfortable personally, and more interested in a healthy and engaged open geospatial community. I think participation in discussions like this are an indicator of community health and engagement.
> 
> With that in mind, I'd be keen to hear if others in the community have feelings on this matter.
> 
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 08:14, Alex Leith <alexgleith at gmail.com <mailto:alexgleith at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Perhaps we should change the wording to say that the Board will communicate on this Oceania list unless the matter involves confidential or other sensitive discussions, in which case they will be communicate on the oceania-board list.
> 
> I think communicating openly by default is achievable.
> 
> And obviously, holding discussions on the oceania-board list does store records for posterity, just not openly.
> 
> Would the above proposal make you comfortable, John?
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 09:39, Martin Tomko <tomkom at unimelb.edu.au <mailto:tomkom at unimelb.edu.au>> wrote:
> Thanks John,
> 
> I agree, and will keep an eye on my part about this during the board deliberations. I also favour transparency in this – and I fear we have slipped a bit.
> 
>  
> 
> Martin
> 
>  
> 
> From: Oceania <oceania-bounces at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:oceania-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>> on behalf of John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com <mailto:johnwbryant at gmail.com>>
> Date: Thursday, 3 September 2020 at 10:31 pm
> To: "oceania at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:oceania at lists.osgeo.org>" <oceania at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:oceania at lists.osgeo.org>>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review
> 
>  
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> Adam has pointed out a couple of the changes, which sound positive to me. But there is another significant change I'd like to bring up, which might not be obvious.
> 
>  
> 
> In the "Communication" section, the new proposed Terms of Reference says:
> 
> The Board aims to operate transparently.
> Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list (oceania-board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:oceania-board at lists.osgeo.org>). In some cases it
> may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space, for example if it relates to specific individuals
> or commercial-in-confidence matters. In these cases, the person beginning a thread should state why it
> should be kept private.
> 
>  
> 
> This is fairly similar wording to before, but this:
> 
> The board will establish a new public mailing list, where discussion and decision making will occur.
> 
> has changed to:
> 
> Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list (oceania-board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:oceania-board at lists.osgeo.org>).
> 
>  
> 
> It isn't immediately obvious that the oceania-board list is a private list, not available to the community. The prior commitment was to discuss and decide in public by default, but it appears this has been dropped.
> 
>  
> 
> I find the proposed new text to be somewhat unclear in its meaning. The use of "In some cases it may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space..." sounds like it's intended to identify exceptions to the use of a public list, but as a qualifier to the use of a private channel, it doesn't really make sense.
> 
>  
> 
> I would dearly love to see OSGeo Oceania reaffirm its commitment to operating transparently by using a public list for discussion. In my opinion, it's an effective and efficient way for community members to stay up to date and find ways to participate, and it works passively, requiring little or no extra volunteer effort. It's a commonly used practice in OSGeo and OSM communities, we've done it successfully before, and as a community based on principles of openness, I feel it powerfully demonstrates commitment to these principles at all levels.
> 
>  
> 
> But if that's not possible, the text should be modified to make it clear that board discussions are held in a private space, so there can be no misunderstanding about the change.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, 10:02 am Martin Tomko, <tomkom at unimelb.edu.au <mailto:tomkom at unimelb.edu.au>> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I would like this discussion to not be lost, too.
> 
> I believe Trish has been looking at the update of the ToRs, cc-ing here.
> 
> Martin
> 
>  
> 
> From: Oceania <oceania-bounces at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:oceania-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>> on behalf of Adam Steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com <mailto:adam.d.steer at gmail.com>>
> Date: Monday, 24 August 2020 at 6:27 pm
> To: John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com <mailto:johnwbryant at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "oceania at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:oceania at lists.osgeo.org>" <oceania at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:oceania at lists.osgeo.org>>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review
> 
>  
> 
> Hi John
> 
> Responding as an individual board member, mainly because these requests should never sit idle for more than a few days:
> 
> Thanks for sparking a fresh ToR discussion among the board. My feeling about the changes between v1 and proposed v2 are driven by a move from 'we are setting up...'  to 'we are operating...'.
> 
> I think the most important addition is a reference to a specific code of conduct we apply to operations of both the board and things we support (the Berlin Code of Conduct [1]). Another key change is a lot less proscription about the mechanics of how conference LOCs work ( we no longer say how an LOC should organise, just that we will support...)
> 
> Personally, I could and should have definitely paid more attention to TOR alterations this past 6 months. It's nearly coming time for an election, which will put a burner under us to get over a fire-and-covid-induced languor and make sure a few things get packaged up.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Adam
> 
> [1] https://berlincodeofconduct.org/ <https://berlincodeofconduct.org/>_______________________________________________
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alex Leith
> m: 0419189050
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200904/6ba55d75/attachment.html>