Hi - I have been following this discussion with interest...however lately I don't always follow OSGEO Discuss in a timely manner, so I don't have all the elements fresh with me and I apologise.
As a former vice-president and external relations guy for the Italian OSGEO Chapter, and having before and after been involved in other community-based organisations (both virtual and with feet-on-the-ground)... my question is: is it better to invest time and energy to define a code of conduct to avoid lobbies, or to acknowledge that the behaviour termed by some Western civilizations as "lobbying" is pretty much human and should just be factored in a process (while acknowledging that there are also many individuals and organisations that *do not* use it and have the same right to play their game)? I don't see a big issue with lobbies as long as they are declared. Andrea Giacomelli Culture, Environment, Open Innovation http://www.pibinko.org i...@pibinko.org +39 331 7539228 P. IVA: 01582480537 Il giorno mar 18 dic 2018 alle ore 21:41 Ben Caradoc-Davies < b...@transient.nz> ha scritto: > I support this idea. It would be analogous to academic journals that > require authors to declare any conflicts of interest. > > We might also adopt a rule, if we do not already have one, that, when > voting, members should act only to further the goals of OSGeo. While I > do not expect that it would happen, I would not like to see an member > vote for a client or employer in exchange for consideration. Adopting an > explicit rule would, in my view, help members resist external pressure. > > We must also balance the risk of lobbies with the need to support > members who are promoting OSGeo within their large organisations. Having > several members in an organisation allows them to support each other in > what can otherwise be a lonely position. Promotion of OSGeo through > mentoring and development of new members is one of our most valuable > forms of corporate outreach. In my view, any new rules should support > and not discourage these outreach activities. Transparent disclosure may > be sufficient and better than proscriptive rules. > > Kind regards, > Ben. > > On 19/12/2018 00:45, Tom Chadwin wrote: > > Hello all > > > > Perhaps if we request a declaration of any relationship (commercial or > personal) between nominator/seconder and nominee, that would make > everything transparent, and allow members to judge for themselves whether > such relationships cast doubt on the validity of the nominee? > > > > Thanks > > > > Tom > > -- > Ben Caradoc-Davies <b...@transient.nz> > Director > Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/> > New Zealand > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
