[OSGeo Oceania] Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

[Adam Steer]

Hey John, all

That clause was aimed at preventing people whos only interest is to get on
boards getting on the board, and has been a topic of debate. Based on your
input about the constitution its probably a good idea to just replace it
with ’nominees shall be nominated in accordance with clause 74 and 19.3 of
the constitution [link])

It is worth remembering we all just kinda nominated ourselves at the start.

Cheers

Adam



On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 05:43, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Great work, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the election
> process. I've added a couple of comments to the Google doc, but I have a
> specific concern that may need a little more room for discussion.
>
> In the proposed process, there is a section called "*Minimum term of
> membership*", which says:
>
>> *To be nominated as a Director, you must have been a Member for a minimum
>> of 12 months (calculated from closing date of elections). This ensures that
>> potential Directors have had the opportunity to participate in OSGeo
>> Oceania business, and gives the Board an opportunity to mentor those who
>> would like to take up leadership positions in the future.*
>>
>
> I think there are a couple of issues with this:
>
> *1) It's not an effective way to assess someone's capability to act as a
> director. *
>
> For example, I want to nominate Edwin Liava'a to stand in the next
> election. Edwin was a keynote speaker at last year's conference in
> Wellington, and has been a highly engaged leader in the Pacific open
> geospatial community for many years. He's volunteered on a number of
> committees that would count as OSGeo Oceania business. He's done plenty to
> prove his dedication to this community, would be an asset to the
> organisation, and would be an effective voice from the Pacific, which to
> date has been missing from the board.
>
> But (as far as I can tell) Edwin's not currently a formal member, so by
> this clause he wouldn't be qualified to serve as a director, even if he
> became a member now.
>
> My point is, there are likely many people in our community who would be
> excellent additions to the board, and the length of their membership
> doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of their potential for contribution.
> If someone has a valuable contribution to make, why would we want to put
> this up as an obstacle?
>
> *2) It may not be within the board's scope to decide who is qualified to
> serve as a future director.*
>
> Required qualifications to serve as a director are already defined in the
> constitution
> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kZD8pcW2efjLEY7ih3rzcWpe7X0hEG2A>
> (section 74: simply, "*Each Director must be a Member*").
>
> Members' rights to nominate are also defined there, subject to this
> qualification (section 79.3: "*Any Member may nominate a person who is
> eligible for appointment under clause 74 to serve as a Director.*").
>
> I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use the election process to create
> additional eligibility hurdles, it seems this might be impacting on
> members' rights.
>
> If a nomination were declared ineligible based on this section in the
> election process, could a constitutional challenge be made? If the election
> process were found to be in conflict with the constitution, could this
> potentially render the election invalid? Obviously it's a hypothetical,
> unlikely scenario, but maybe not impossible.
>
> My feeling is the election process would be better without this section.
> If there are new director eligibility requirements to add, it seems a lot
> safer to stick to using constitution amendments, which would require formal
> assent by the membership through a statutory process.
>
> Cheers
> John
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <hn.campbell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,
>>
>> Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing
>> directors to the board requires your review and feedback.
>>
>> You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1td2oDBssX_33yIFN1h0UgSvkoUa8MckZiix7nsIdmcs/edit?usp=sharing>.
>> We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to
>> this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on
>> Wednesday, September 23rd.
>>
>> The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and
>> timeline in early October.
>>
>> Thank you for your contribution!
>>
>> On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200913/82647d5a/attachment.html>