Dear All,
don't forget about the moral task of Charter members, to be an advocate of
OSGeo and FOSS4G.
I would keep OSGeo membership, those who are not contributing code,
documentation, etc. to a project, membership is the only way to express their
connection to OSGeo.
It is more than just to join a mailing list...
Thank you Vasile for the great summary.
Best regards,
Zoltan
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Eli Adam wrote:
Vasile,
Great work pulling this together.
We keep calling this discussion things like "Charter member elections"
and addressing it during election periods. I think that topic is
really something else, "the nature and types of OSGeo Membership" or
something similar.
If we evaluate our existing structure [1], I think that we can regard
"Participants" as a resounding success (there are 10,000+ involved on
the email lists, projects, events, etc). Just as the "Participants"
are a success, I think that "Members" are a near complete failure [52]
[53] in their current form, I think that "Charter Members" are working
well enough in that they seem to be achieving their purpose of being
people dedicated to the OSGeo Mission, electing the Board and Charter
members, and preventing the unlikely scenario of a takeover. Charter
membership seems to be fraught with all sorts of additional
connotation, confusion, differring perspectives, and debate. Based on
this, I think that OSGeo should further our success with
"participants", end "membership" since it failed, and refine "Charter"
so that is works better.
What OSGeo membership and Charter membership has been unclear to many.
Here is the explanation that I often give to people (some of whom have
been using and contributing to OSGeo projects for 5+ years):
Members simply self identify as members on the wiki.
Charter members are nominated and elected. They do what they see fit
when they see fit to further/support the goals and mission of OSGeo.
It has also historically been a badge of honor for contributing good
work.
What a "Charter Member" is is a matter of endless debate but the very
practical purpose is simple: The real practical purpose of Charter
Members is to elect the Board of Directors (and more Charter Members).
It is to prevent hostile takeover of the organization (or the
organization's resources) since OSGeo other than voting for the Board
and Charter Members, is open to all who find it, figure out how to
participate, are inclined to participate, and feel welcome.
By offering to nominate you as a Charter Member what I really think is that:
1) you support the OSGeo Mission and Goals (promote Open Source GIS
software through the world)
2) you are sufficiently responsible and care enough to pay minimal
attention twice per year to vote for the OSGeo Board of Directors and
additional Charter Members
3) in the extremely unlikely scenario of a hostile takeover you would
first be aware of it and secondly vote to prevent it <--this is
really the sole purpose of Charter Members but it is so unlikely that
people forget this is the purpose and it is sort of a stupid purpose
(even if necessary).
In that regard, I think that the survey should include some questions like:
"OSGeo Membership should be more open/closed" "Agree or Disagree
1-10; 10 is strongly agree, 1 is strongly disagree"
"The primary purpose of OSGeo Membership is: a) increase participation
in OSGeo activities b) recognize substantial OSGeo contributors c)
give members a sense of identity and cohesion d)
other_________________________"
"Maintaining some structure to prevent takeover of the organization
is: a) a waste of time and effort b) worthwhile even if guarding
against an unlikely event c) other_____________"
"Charter membership should be renamed to a) keep it as Charter b)
voting members c) electors d) other _____________"
"Charter membership should not be used as an honor or mark of prestige
instead those should be addressed by a) disagree, charter membership
is for prestige b) The Sol Katz Award c) we should have some other
badge system d) other ________"
"The number of Charter members should be a) restricted to some low
number b) only be constrained by the number of good candidates
available c) other _________"
and other questions regarding the types and nature of OSGeo membership
I do believe that Charter members play an important role guarding
against the extremely unlikely risk of a takeover. Other than that
very minor role which can be achieved by several methods, I think that
all OSGeo activities should be as open as possible to as many people
as possible.
Best regards, Eli
[1] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership
[52] http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Category:OSGeo_Member --
fewer than 1,000 people have bothered to register as "Members"
[53] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_member_page_instruction
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Vasile Craciunescu
<vas...@geo-spatial.org> wrote:
Dear Cameron, Arnulf, Jeff and Gert-Jan,
Thank you for your appreciations! It was an interesting exercise of digital
archeology :)
Dear all,
I'm waiting until tomorrow for more feedback/ideas. Then I will draft a
survey, I will send you the questions and ask for your opinion and finally,
if all agree, the survey will be sent to all charter members.
Best,
Vasile
On 7/2/15 3:29 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Thanks Vasile for all your excellent research. Great job (and an
interesting read).
Are you planning to draft sample questions and tick box answers to be
commented on before being put to the vote?
Cheers Cameron?
On 30/06/2015 10:39 pm, Arnulf Christl (OSGeo) wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Vasile,
thanks from here too for this very useful recap. I posted it more or
less verbatim to the discussion page of the Charter Members article in
the Wiki:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Talk:Membership_Process
All,
on the OSGeo Wiki we currently have 605 "self categorized" OSGeo members:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Category:OSGeo_Member
This is the best we can currently do for anybody who is interested in
becoming an OSGeo member apart from subscribing to the Discuss mailing
list or being nominated as a "Charter Member" to be then elected by an
eclectic group of geospatial whizzes.
Just to reiterate: "Charter Members" are usually those who set up the
charter of an organization:
"A charter member of an organization is an original member; that is, one
who became a member when the organization received its charter."
- From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter
After signing the Charter they can continue to participate actively in
the organization, go away or even die - without any of this actually
changing the Charter.
What is OSGeo's Charter? My guess is that the section "About the Open
Source Geospatial Foundation" contains what we would consider our
Charter.
As a legal body incorporated in Delaware, USA we needed to implement how
the newly founded organization should support this charter. This has
been written into the bylaws:
http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
In "ARTICLE VII Members" of our bylaws we specify how we plan to manage
membership. There is no talk of "Charter Members", just "members".
Looking at what we did almost 10 years ago it was probably the right
thing to do at that time. But it may be good for an update. My
suggestion is to change this section into regular membership and remove
the self-pollinating aspect. At the same time we could update our
"About" section into a proper Charter and then go ahead and operate as
any regular member association.
On a personal note: I do not see any danger of a hostile take-over. This
was an important catch we put into the DNA of OSGeo when we founded it.
There never was a hostile take-over and I cannot really see it coming.
We are big enough to not need to fear this anymore. And we would make
OSGeo a much more open and welcoming organization if we moved away from
this somewhat strange self pollinating system.
I am not really passionate about this and only consider it an overdue
maintenance patch to how OSGeo functions. If there is no broad interest
I am happy to drop the ball, otherwise I am as happy to help build a
more appropriate member mechanism.
Best regards,
Seven
- -- Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)
OSGeo President Emeritus
OSGeo Founding and Charter Member
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Arnulf_Christl
On 30.06.2015 13:24, Gert-Jan van der Weijden - Stichting OSGeo.nl wrote:
Vasile: thanks for this very useful recap.
A few remarks from a relative newbie as I am ;-)
- the name of the wiki page with the charter members is already called
"voting members" ;-)
- the charter member list grows and grows. Over the year only 1 person
retired from the charter member list
- charter membership seems to drift towards a title of honour,
instead of a
mechanism for proper board elections and prevent a hostile take-over
- the voting participant rate for the board elections is low over the
years:
70% - 85%. I would expect 100%!
Therefore, I'd suggest a voting membership with:
- a fixed number of seats (e.g. 72)
- with a certain numbers of seats reserved for each region [51],
(e.g. 6*6,
and thus 36 remaining "wildcard"-seats).
- in case of not enough candidates, or note enough votes for a candidate
from a certain region, seats can remain empty
- a 3 term (instead of a lifetime membership, re-election possible)
- and a mechanism in which not all seats are elected every year, but
one-third every year, and thus all seats once every three years
Just my 2 eurocents,
Gert-Jan
[51] http://bl.ocks.org/jsanz/raw/779f9b9954b92461fa50/
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] Namens Vasile Craciunescu
Verzonden: maandag 29 juni 2015 15:08
Aan: OSGeo Discussions
Onderwerp: [OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections
Dear all,
First of all, please accept my apologies for the delay in sending this
message to you and, again, apologies for the length of the message.
Let's start with some basic information about the charter member
elections
followed by a little bit of history. I know that many of you already
know
the details but the community is quite large now and I find this recap
useful.
OSGeo charter members [1] are the blood of our foundation. They are
voted
into this category by the other charter members. They have the right
to vote
in elections for other charter members and for board members. They are
required to act in accordance with the goals and bylaws [2] of the
Foundation and have the following responsibilities:
(1) annually vote for OSGeo Board members; (2) annually vote for new
OSGeo
Charter members and (3) be aware of and protect against a hostile
takeover
of OSGeo.
Each year new charter members are nominated (nomination process is
open for
the entire community, not only to the existing charter members) and
elected
by existing OSGeo charter members, in a process supervised by the
board [3]
and operated by the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) [4].
Non-active members can retire or be removed by board decision. An
updated
list with all the current and past charter members is available on OSGEo
website [5]. During the years the charter members selection procedure
suffered minor and major changes as you can see bellow.
OSGeo was created in early 2006 [7]. One of the main outcomes of the
first
OSGeo meeting (held in Chicago) [7] was a list of 21 foundation voting
members (most of them high profile figures of the existing FOSS4G
projects) and 5 interim directors [8]. Later that month, the first real
elections started with a public nomination call [9] followed by a
vote [10]
and the election of new 24 voting members [11]. This was followed by
a new
nomination call [12] for the remaining four open seats in the board.
After a
tight vote, the first four candidates [13] from a list of eight [14]
join
the board.
In June, after a f2f meeting, the new board redefined the OSGeo
membership
categories as we know today [15]. The voting members are now called
"Charter
Members" and they have the right to vote in elections for other charter
members, and for board members. The other member categories
(participant &
members) have the right to nominate charter board members but they
cannot
cast votes. In March 2007, with the approach of the new charter members
elections, discussion started about the ned for a CRO position, the
number
of new seats (and by who/how the number is decided) and the voting
procedure
(e.g. nomination and voting period extend, right to designate a
proxy, the
number of votes each charter member can submit) [16]. In June 2007 the
nomination process [17] started with the aim to elect 15 charter members
(the number was arbitrarily selected by the board). During the vote
[18],
each charter member was entitled to cast votes up to 15 names from the
nomination list. It was possible to cast more than one vote to the same
nominee (even all 15 votes).
The same voting procedure was used for the 2008 charter member elections
(including the number of seats, 15) [19]. However, the nomination list
included 18 great names [20] and people start asking to accept all the
names. Again, the method to pick the number of open seats was questioned
again. Some people ask not to change the rules during the game and to
select
only 15 names. And 15th it was. Ironically, "there was a four-way tie
for
last place. So, the 15th person on the list was selected by a random
process." [21].
In 2009 the elections [22] followed the same rules but the number of
seats
was raised to 30. Though, as before, the charter members were able to
cast
only 15 votes. All nominated members [23] were elected as the number was
bellow 30.
2010 [24], brought an important change. Due to lack of time for proper
organization, it was decided to switch the election order and elect the
charter members after the board elections. This way, the new charter
members
were not able to vote in the same year were elected. Also, the board
decided, in a f2f meeting, to "add 10% of existing members each year
- 10
new members this year." [25]. The charter member were able to cast a
maximum
of 10 votes using the same rules as before. However, a number of voices
noted that the list of nominee [26] had many great names and it was a
pity
to cut down to only 10. Some suggested that is time to make some
changes in
the charter member selection procedure (e.g. [27]).
In 2011 [28] the elections order remain the same as in 2010. The board
agreed on opening 20 seats (20% - [29]). Each member were able to cast a
maximum of 20 votes using the same rules as before. In the end, 21
members
were elected (all nominees [30]) as it was a tie for the 20th slot
and that
still fits within the limits of 20% new charter members set by the
board.
The voting participating rate was 65% and some voices ask about the
charter
member retirement procedure.
In 2012 [31] the election schedule return to the initial order: first
charter member and then board. 20 seats were open and the board
decided to
accept all 22 nominations [32] as it was inline with OSGeo bylaws (is
possible to add between 10% and one third of the existing charter
membership).
2013 [33] elections followed the 2012 scenario. 30 seats open. 37
nominations received [34]. The board decided to accept all the
nominations.
2014 [35], the year of the change for OSGeo charter member elections.
First big change was the implementation of an electronic voting
system [36]
to replace the e-mail voting. The selection process itself was also
revised
from the bottom. Each charter member received an email with a
personalized
url to access the electronic voting system. Each charter member can vote
with Yes/No/Abstain for all nominated charter members.
Each candidate with more YES votes than NO votes, and greater than 5% of
voting charter members voting YES for them, were included as new charter
members. The result was that all 64 nominations [37] were accepted as
Charter members. For the first time, the board decided to publish the
elections results on the internet with detail numbers of
YES/NO/ABSTAIN for
each nominee [38]. Some concerns were raised about the low threshold of
voting charter members voting YES for a nominee.
Now we are getting to the current year. In 2015 [39], the elections will
follow the same pattern: charter members and then board members. For the
charter members elections, the OSGeo president, Jeff McKenna, propose to
change the the above mentioned threshold from 5% to 50% [40]. Jeff did a
simulation on the last year votes with the new threshold and
discovered that
45 nominations would be accepted, versus all 64 nominations. The item
was
briefly introduced during the board meeting held in June [41].
Due to the lack of time, no detailed discussions or vote follow [42].
However, a motion on the item was introduced to the board via e-mail
[43].
The board was not able to reach an consensus with six votes to
approve, one
abstain and two to reject the motion. Some other charter members join
the
discussion but also with split opinions. Some are pro for a more
exclusive
charter membership and some are for a easy way to join. A
consultation with
the entire community was demanded. For more details see thread "[Board]
motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter membership more
exclusive" on the board mailing list [44]. The thread expanded on the
OSGeo-discuss mailing list and more concerns were raised. Like: the
YES/NO/Abstain options should be better explained to the charter
members;
ask the charter members to vote on the threshold; the algorithm to
measure
the support for a nominee should be modified as Abstain votes are
counted
right now as No votes. The "YES / (NO + YES) = percentage support"
[45] and
"(YES-NO) / (YES+NO+ABSTAIN) = percentage support" [46] formulas were
suggested; Arnulf suggested that "charter member" term was misused by
OSGeo
in the past and the foundation should embrace a regular membership
mechanism
and even ask for a low annual membership fee [47].
I hope I did not make any mistakes and also did not left important
information outside this recap. I so, please correct/add points. Charter
member elections process is vital to OSGeo, therefore we should proceed
further with great care. The time is also not on our side as we need
to do
this before the board elections. Until now we have the following
options:
a. Go with the unmodified 2014 selection process; b. Change the
threshold
percent; c. Change the algorithm that measure the support for a
nominee; d.
Change both b and c; e. Change the selection process from the ground
(e.g.
move to regular membership); e. Other options not expressed until now.
Please take some time, think about the existing voting system and if/how
should be improved, and express your opinion here. Thanks to the
electronic
voting system we can put your options into a survey and all vote for the
best solution.
Warm regards from sunny Bucharest,
Vasile
(your 2015 CRO)
P.S. Two personal notes after I did some research about the
selection/voting
process in other open source software organizations: 1) all of them
seem to
have difficulties in finding the best solution (apparently such solution
does not exist); 2) OSGeo is a very transparent organization.
[1] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership
[2] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
[3] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process
[4] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Chief_Returning_Officer
[5] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/members/voting_members.html
[6]
http://www.osgeo.org/content/news/news_archive/open_source_geospatial_founda
tion_initial_press_release.html.html
[7]
http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/meetings/2006_02_04/meeting.html
[8] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Charter_Members
[9] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-February/000008.html
[10] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-February/000073.html
[11] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000132.html
[12] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000167.html
[13] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000314.html
[14]
http://www.osgeo.org/content/news/news_archive/board_nom_20060314.html
[15] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership
[16] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-March/001558.html
[17] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-May/001964.html
[18] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-June/002003.html
[19] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2008
[20] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2008
[21] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2008-June/003789.html
[22] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2009
[23] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2009
[24] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2010
[25]
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meeting_Barcelona_2010#Meeting_Minut
es
[26] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2010
[27] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2010-November/008312.html
[28] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2011
[29] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meeting_Denver_2011#Minutes
[30] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2011
[31] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2012
[32] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2012
[33] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2013
[34] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2013
[35] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014
[36] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Electronic_Voting
[37] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2014
[38] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014_detailed_results
[39] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2015
[40] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-May/012863.html
[41] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2015
[42] http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2014-09-13.log
[43] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012912.html
[44] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/thread.html
[45] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012945.html
[46] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012946.html
[47] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-June/014374.html
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlWSjfQACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b2JJACeLfsFZzEGCbQK9bCkfyn8kO5S
mnIAnjZRlV9rRG6DFrZg/PpsVDj8uJ8l
=/hLJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Vasile Crăciunescu
geo-spatial.org: An elegant place for sharing geoKnowledge & geoData
http://www.geo-spatial.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/geo-spatial
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
