Thanks for your feedback Dimitris,
You have made some valuable comments.
I'm also surprised that there has only been a few comments on this
thread, although I'm hopeful that this equates to a general feeling that
the proposal as crafted is reasonably close to group opinion.
The proposal as it stands aims to address some of the concerns raised
from previous years, and leaves the opportunity for others to improve it
still in future years. (In particular, after testing with this upcoming
vote, I see the potential to make greater use of charter member voting
using tools such as limesurvey).
On 24/06/2014 4:01 am, Dimitris Kotzinos wrote:
Dear Cameron,
thanks for the reply and the comments to my previous e-mail. It also
gave me a chance to revisit the rules around the charter members.
I was expecting this issue to be further discussed within the
community and i am a bit disappointed with the evolution of the
discussion, given the fact that the board will make a decision shortly.
I am happy that you agree with me in most of the cases; I should also
point out that my comments aim at improving the voting process this
year (why wait for the next) unless this year's decision does not
accept any alterations.
A few more comments:
-- Voting of charter members: I agree that in the rules is stated that
the Charter Members are voting for new Charter Members and the board.
Then maybe we should consider the members to vote (I think that this
can be considered based on the bylaws)?
If we agree with the need to validate this kind of decisions from a
larger body, then a solution can be found.
-- For the proposed changes and in the request for data to validate
them; I cannot understand the comment that anyone who disagrees should
bring up data that validate the current status. Usually the one who
proposes changes should bring along some data to prove that the
changes are needed and are in the proper direction. But for me there
is no need since the last two years, whoever applied for Charter
Member status was accepted. So I cannot see who was rejected.
So I still do not see where the need for such changes comes from and
what exactly we expect to improve with this.
I think that the proposed process creates a small bias and mainly
gives the message that the Charter Members do not vote wisely enough
to let the breadth and depth of the Foundation Membership to be
represented. And I think that this is simply not true. I am also
afraid when a future board might decide to have the 3/4 of members ex
officio and so on ... But this can be just me.
So no need to recycle the discussion, thanks again for the response -
I am sure that the board will consider the fact that whatever
objections come in good faith and I do trust that the board will take
a wise decision.
Best regards,
Dimitris
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
