[forwarding it to OSGeo discuss] Vasile,
thanks a lot for your hard work as CRO and considerations to keep the _community_ in balance! Kind regards Helmut OSGeo charter member >Dear Board directors and dear members of OSGeo community, > >This year elections [1] will end in less than 7 hours and it is time for >me, as CRO, to make a short assessment and to issue a few recommendations. > >As you all know, during the process we had a few situations that caused >tension and discontent to an important number of our members. I will go >through the most important ones. > >1. This year membership process [2] was a very lite one. The basic rule >for becoming a charter member was to be nominated by one existing member >and to be seconded by at least one other existing member. This lite >approach was in line with the new OSGeo Vision and Mission Statement >which is focused on being inclusive [3]. However, during the nomination >period, many of our members considered the new membership process way >too inclusive/lite, causing a diminution in the importance of the >charter member position. Another subject that produced criticism was >related to the fact that some of the nominations were considered short >in content and did not offer enough information on the "positive >attributes" [4] that a potential member shall have. Finally, one of the >charter member responsibilities [5], "Be aware of and protect against a >takeover of OSGeo by single group or viewpoint.", was also a subject of >dispute. My recommendations for the future board are to: (a) Change the >existing membership process with another one more balanced, that assures >both inclusiveness and a consistent weight for the charter member >position. Of course, this new mechanism should be discussed with the >community; (b) Impose a a very light template for the new nominations. >This way, all the nominations will be consistent and comparable. (c) >Rephrase responsibility no. 3 of the charter members. The meaning should >be kept bu the wording should not sound that martial. > >2. Jeff was nominated for the board of directors while was serving as >co-CRO. Even if the nominee steeped down immediately from the co-CRO >position, the access to the cro at osgeo.org was immediately cut-off and he >never had access to the electronic voting system, criticism over the >potential conflict of interest and elections credibility was raised. My >recommendation for the board is to make a specific rule that a >nomination/candidacy for/from a person that is acting as CRO or has any >other role in the election management is not acceptable. > >3. During the voting period Jeff sent a request to withdraw from the >elections due to the negative feedback. This also started a vivid >debate. My recommendation for the board is to create a clear rule >stating that an accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start >of the voting period. Of course, elected persons can always resign for >various reasons. > >Regarding the current status of the elections. 311 from a total of 390 >members voted (80%). Due to the final reminder sent today there are >chances to improve the voting participation. > >In my previous message I was proposing to accept Jeff's withdraw request >but to continue the elections without any modification to the voting >list. After more study on different voting systems and after going >through your feedback, my decision and proposal for the board is not to >admit the request from Jeff. Such requests are not possible in this kind >of elections elsewhere. It is true that we have no specific rule for >that in our bylaws. As I mentioned before, this should change. After the >release of the elections results, and if Jeff is elected, it's up to him >to decide if he goes on with the mandate or if he is resigning. This >decision should be a very fast one, without further discussions on the >mailing list, with all the possible arguments being already on the table. > >The other option that the board can consider is to entirely restart the >board elections cycle (or only the voting part for the remaining 8 >nominations). Even if this looks like the most correct way to go, >looking on how the elections went before and after Jeff announcement, I >can say, without disclosing anything about the final results, that the >announcement did not changed the way people were voting. Of course, this >is not a fact, is just my conclusion after looking at the trends. After >the elections, beside the final numbers, I will also publish the >evolution of the votes (every single vote and the timestamp, anonymized >of course). Other important reasons for the board not to start new >elections are: (a) The community is very irritated about this never >ending stories and people are waiting to move forward and do the things >we usually do. For most of them, the arguments for restarting the >elections are not strong enough; (b) Four of our current board members >are also running in this elections. Although that personally I have no >doubts that each one of them will position/vote/decide correctly, only >in the interest of the community, some objections on the >position/vote/decision impartiality can be raised. > >In any case, the board should have an opinion before the results are >made public. To give time to board members to react, I plan to release >the results of the vote on Thursday 17:00 GMT. If needed, more time can >be allocated. However, deciding on the way to go further after seeing >the results can only escalate the possible conflict of interest. > >I'm asking the board for a position not because I'm running away from >the responsibility (my position was clearly presented) but because we >have no specific rules in our bylaws for the current situation and the >CRO has really no legal obligations, the board members being the one >that are legally responsible for the foundation decisions. > >Personally I have to apologize again to you for the length of this >message. I was not able to convey this in a more condensed way. I think >the most important challenges for the near and medium future are to >restore the trust of our community in the way the organization is >managed and to reconcile what is now, in my opinion, a divided >community. Of course, achieving this is not easy, will require a better >communication and the prevail of arguments over emotions, but, under >such a vibrant, passionate and transparent organization like OSGeo this >is surely possible. > >As CRO, I did my best not to express any personal opinion, to focus >strictly on facts and rules, to be calm and impartial. Not sure how well >that went by the end but I want to assure everyone that all my actions >were perform in good faith and to the extend of my knowledge. I'm >thankful for all the people that assisted me along the way with >technical support (Jeff, Jorge, Jody, Werner). I will also would like to >extend my gratitude to all the people that publicly or privately >expressed support for the CRO activity. It was highly appreciated. For >me this will be the last term as CRO. Not because this year was a little >bit more challenging but just because I did this three times and someone >else should take the lead. Of course, that person will have my full >support. > >I will finish this by thanking all the people that voted and expressed >opinions on this list. Direct involvement and dialog are the only >options to move ahead as a community. > >Best, >Vasile >CRO 2017 > >[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2017 >[2] >https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process[https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process] >[3] http://www.osgeo.org/about[http://www.osgeo.org/about] >[4] >https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes[https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Positive_Attributes] >[5] >https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Responsibilities[https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process#Responsibilities] _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss