Arnulf,
I am delighted to hear about your light workload on the OSGeo Board. It
gives me confidence that OSGeo is working better than I originally expected.
I vote for board members I trust.
I trust visible, respected OSGeo developers and evangelists. These
people are always over committed.
So I want the board member's job to be limited to overseeing the healthy
running of OSGeo so they can continue their existing activities.
--
Oh, and for the record, I'm +1 for encouraging voters to select board
diversity, -1 for mandating it. Which seems to be the majority sentiment.
Daniel Morissette wrote:
Tim,
I'm in agreement with most of your comments except this one:
Tim Bowden wrote:
Personally I think charter membership should be
opened up to anyone who who wants to apply and can find an existing
member or two to second their application. I realise part of the
rationale for the current structure was to avoid the organisation being
hijacked, but it would seem that OSGeo has a healthy enough community
that the risk of that is practically non-existent. In the (very)
unlikely event that happened, the exodus of projects, members and
sponsors from the org would make it nothing but a hollow meaningless
shell worth nothing to the hijackers.
If all the hijacker wants is to see OSGeo's coordinated efforts fall
apart then the "exodus of projects, members and sponsors" would give
them exactly what they wanted.
I think the current system of charter membership is a necessary
protection that OSGeo needs to maintain, even if it's not perfect.
Daniel
--
Cameron Shorter
Systems Architect, http://lisasoft.com.au
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
