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

Sun Sep 13 18:59:15 PDT 2020

Hey John

I'm not sure about the 12 month qualifying period either, but I do think
that having 'skin in the game' as Adam has said many times is important. If
someone wants to be on the Board, the smallest hurdle is being a member and
having the foresight to be a member, and presumably involved, for at least
12 months is not really a big deal.

That said though, you are right that we cannot override the constitution in
our election process... So while we may 'define a process' in clause 79.1,
I don't think we can further constrain eligibility, as per clause 74.

So I think we need to remove this qualifier from the election process and
refer to the constitution.

Kind regards,

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:46, Martin Tomko <tomkom at unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

> Hi John, Adam, all
>
> I agree with your second point, John, that this should be covered by the
> constitution. I awas myself uneasy with the decision that the board decides
> this.
>
>
>
> I am not in agreement with the first point. I believe that we are now past
> the ”storming and forming” stage of the organisation, and our initial days.
>
> I believe that to stand as a director, members need to demonstrate that a
> member has been active for a period of time, in good faith. The issues OSM
> had in the last year are a testament. The organisation is now managing
> substantial funds, and carries responsibility.
>
>
>
> This could be addressed in a number of ways, in my eyes:
>
>
>
>    - A candidate could have the backing of a number of members that have
>    been members for at least 12 months ( I suggest 3), if the candidate
>    themself were not a member for that period;
>    - A backing of a SIG could be equivalent.
>
> Anyway, I do not see a problem for people to wait for 12 month before
> being  nominated for a director.
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> *From: *Oceania <oceania-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of John
> Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, 13 September 2020 at 10:38 pm
> *To: *Adam Steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com>, "oceania at lists.osgeo.org" <
> oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board
> Election Process & Timeline
>
>
>
> Yes! We want the board to be made up of engaged and motivated people with
> the community's best interests at heart. Our community is full of people
> like this! I reckon our best bet is to articulate that vision, create the
> conditions for those people to step forward and participate, and make sure
> the members who elect the board have enough visibility into it all to make
> informed decisions.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2020, 3:48 pm Adam Steer, <adam.d.steer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200914/6d1d4f17/attachment.html>