Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo, OSGeo projects, OSGeo-live, open data, nature conservation
2014-06-19 23:10 GMT+02:00 Helmut Kudrnovsky : > hi, > > just for the record: > > a new article (sorry in german) about OSGeo, OSGeo projects, OSGeo-live, > open data and nature conservation: > > > http://www.anl.bayern.de/publikationen/anliegen/doc/an36113kudrnovsky_2014_open_data.pdf > > best regards > Helmut (OSGeo charter member ;-)) > > > > Great Helmut, thanks for sharing! -- Jorge Sanz http://www.osgeo.org http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jorge_Sanz ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo, OSGeo projects, OSGeo-live, open data, nature conservation
hi, just for the record: a new article (sorry in german) about OSGeo, OSGeo projects, OSGeo-live, open data and nature conservation: http://www.anl.bayern.de/publikationen/anliegen/doc/an36113kudrnovsky_2014_open_data.pdf best regards Helmut (OSGeo charter member ;-)) - best regards Helmut -- View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-OSGeo-projects-OSGeo-live-open-data-nature-conservation-tp5146854.html Sent from the OSGeo Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
Hi all, good - and important! - discussion! Being Charter Member I am somewhat concerned: - I am surprised that the common democratic procedure of election is perceived as creating "dissent". - yes, democracy is expensive, but generally it is considered worth the effort. - is "lifelong membership" compatible with community participation? - "Recognised OSGeo Community Leaders" seem to get determined in a very special, selective way (as compared to standard election procedures). Altogether, the criteria seem to make OSGeo a self-sustaining group: insiders will remain insiders for a lifetime, outsiders will...well, face a hurdle. So the contrary of "open". Just an idea: what about applying the OSGeo incubation checklist to OSGeo itself to determine feasible procedures? cheers, Peter On 06/19/2014 07:28 PM, Dimitris Kotzinos wrote: Dear all, some thoughts on the proposed changes on the Charter Member election process. I will divide my comments into two parts, first some issues about the process itself and then some comments on the proposed changes. (A) the process per se: 1/ I think that whatever change in the election process should be validated by the Charter Members themselves, so I fully agree with Arnulf that we need to vote on that and not just the Board. And of course this contains no offense for the Board; it is just that I think that it is fair that the body who is affected by the changes to take the decisions. Moreover the charter members are the ones who elect the Board so it seems quite awkward to me that the smaller governing body will take such decision. 2/ I think that whatever decision taken should be enforced in next year's elections; members need some time to evaluate that. So it is good to conclude this process now but enforce it from next year. (B) the proposed changes: Before discussing the proposed changes I think that we should understand where the current system has failed. Do we have cases where recognized community leaders failed to be elected? If so please bring them forward. I doubt so though since if I recall correctly the last two years all charter member nominations were accepted without voting! Moreover the notion of a "recognized community leader" that cannot be elected as a charter member is a contradiction by itself. So why change? I am not against the idea of having some people becoming OSGEO Charter Members ex officio but for one I do not like the idea of having members of different categories and secondly I need to have a look at the data: how many of the committee chairs, PSC members, official Chapter chairs are not already OSGEO Charter members (and they wanted to be and failed)? Why are they not nominated to become ones and to be voted? And I don't see how the problem described here: "In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been a little contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations from high caliber members of our community, and insufficient positions to accept them all. This typically results in unnecessary disappointment and dissent." will be resolved: again we will have some people not becoming Charter Members if the seats are not enough. So some of us will still be disappointed, etc. So if the numbers are the same the only difference I see is that now we choose beforehand whom to disappoint and people working in the community but in not "official" positions will have less chances to be elected. If we want to open up the numbers, this is OK, more seats are offered every year anyway. But what else? And of course the first come first served approach if the recognized community leaders are more than the seats is a bit odd: to lighten up the discussion I cannot imagine people with the finger on the mouse waiting for the process to open in order to submit there nominations. Finally, for the voting process I completely disagree with the ability of a member to vote multiple times for the same person. This removes from the process the requirement of someone to be widely recognized within the community and potentially allows "a couple of friends" to elect whoever they want. I think that the discussion is interesting and thanks to the board and Arnulf :) for initiating it! I think that other solutions could also be considered if we feel that we need to differentiate on how charter members get elected, e.g. agree on a bonus percentage that a "community leader" gets when he goes through the standard process, so he still has to be voted by many... I apologize for the length of the e-mail and thanks for listening, Best regards, Dimitris Kotzinos Within 2 weeks we intend to start our annual process for selecting new OSGeo charter members. In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been a little contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations from high caliber members of our community, and insufficient positions to accept them all. This typically results in unn
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
http://www.aag.org/cs/membership/individual_membership http://www.aag.org/cs/membership/individual_membership/dues Both simpler, and better for the bottom line of OSGeo, if you want to be a member, sign up as a member, collect your t-shirt, see you @ foss4g. P. On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Dimitris Kotzinos wrote: > Dear all, > > some thoughts on the proposed changes on the Charter Member election > process. > I will divide my comments into two parts, first some issues about the > process itself and then some comments on the proposed changes. > > (A) the process per se: > 1/ I think that whatever change in the election process should be validated > by the Charter Members themselves, so I fully agree with Arnulf that we need > to vote on that and not just the Board. And of course this contains no > offense for the Board; it is just that I think that it is fair that the body > who is affected by the changes to take the decisions. > Moreover the charter members are the ones who elect the Board so it seems > quite awkward to me that the smaller governing body will take such decision. > 2/ I think that whatever decision taken should be enforced in next year's > elections; members need some time to evaluate that. So it is good to > conclude this process now but enforce it from next year. > > (B) the proposed changes: > Before discussing the proposed changes I think that we should understand > where the current system has failed. Do we have cases where recognized > community leaders failed to be elected? If so please bring them forward. I > doubt so though since if I recall correctly the last two years all charter > member nominations were accepted without voting! Moreover the notion of a > "recognized community leader" that cannot be elected as a charter member is > a contradiction by itself. So why change? > I am not against the idea of having some people becoming OSGEO Charter > Members ex officio but for one I do not like the idea of having members of > different categories and secondly I need to have a look at the data: how > many of the committee chairs, PSC members, official Chapter chairs are not > already OSGEO Charter members (and they wanted to be and failed)? Why are > they not nominated to become ones and to be voted? > And I don't see how the problem described here: > "In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been a little > contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations from high caliber > members of our community, and insufficient positions to accept them all. > This typically results in unnecessary disappointment and dissent." > will be resolved: again we will have some people not becoming Charter > Members if the seats are not enough. So some of us will still be > disappointed, etc. So if the numbers are the same the only difference I see > is that now we choose beforehand whom to disappoint and people working in > the community but in not "official" positions will have less chances to be > elected. > If we want to open up the numbers, this is OK, more seats are offered every > year anyway. But what else? > And of course the first come first served approach if the recognized > community leaders are more than the seats is a bit odd: to lighten up the > discussion I cannot imagine people with the finger on the mouse waiting for > the process to open in order to submit there nominations. > Finally, for the voting process I completely disagree with the ability of a > member to vote multiple times for the same person. This removes from the > process the requirement of someone to be widely recognized within the > community and potentially allows "a couple of friends" to elect whoever they > want. > > I think that the discussion is interesting and thanks to the board and > Arnulf :) for initiating it! > I think that other solutions could also be considered if we feel that we > need to differentiate on how charter members get elected, e.g. agree on a > bonus percentage that a "community leader" gets when he goes through the > standard process, so he still has to be voted by many... > > I apologize for the length of the e-mail and thanks for listening, > > Best regards, > > Dimitris Kotzinos > > > > >> >> Within 2 weeks we intend to start our annual process for selecting new >> OSGeo charter members. >> >> In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been a little >> contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations from high caliber >> members of our community, and insufficient positions to accept them all. >> This typically results in unnecessary disappointment and dissent. >> >> In response, the OSGeo board has agreed to trial tweaking the voting >> process. The aim is to automatically accept recognised OSGeo community >> leaders, while continuing with our existing process which attracts the >> many valuable community members who contribute in other ways. Community >> comments are encouraged, and will be considered over the next week. >> >> *Design
[OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members
Dear all, some thoughts on the proposed changes on the Charter Member election process. I will divide my comments into two parts, first some issues about the process itself and then some comments on the proposed changes. (A) the process per se: 1/ I think that whatever change in the election process should be validated by the Charter Members themselves, so I fully agree with Arnulf that we need to vote on that and not just the Board. And of course this contains no offense for the Board; it is just that I think that it is fair that the body who is affected by the changes to take the decisions. Moreover the charter members are the ones who elect the Board so it seems quite awkward to me that the smaller governing body will take such decision. 2/ I think that whatever decision taken should be enforced in next year's elections; members need some time to evaluate that. So it is good to conclude this process now but enforce it from next year. (B) the proposed changes: Before discussing the proposed changes I think that we should understand where the current system has failed. Do we have cases where recognized community leaders failed to be elected? If so please bring them forward. I doubt so though since if I recall correctly the last two years all charter member nominations were accepted without voting! Moreover the notion of a "recognized community leader" that cannot be elected as a charter member is a contradiction by itself. So why change? I am not against the idea of having some people becoming OSGEO Charter Members ex officio but for one I do not like the idea of having members of different categories and secondly I need to have a look at the data: how many of the committee chairs, PSC members, official Chapter chairs are not already OSGEO Charter members (and they wanted to be and failed)? Why are they not nominated to become ones and to be voted? And I don't see how the problem described here: "In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been a little contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations from high caliber members of our community, and insufficient positions to accept them all. This typically results in unnecessary disappointment and dissent." will be resolved: again we will have some people not becoming Charter Members if the seats are not enough. So some of us will still be disappointed, etc. So if the numbers are the same the only difference I see is that now we choose beforehand whom to disappoint and people working in the community but in not "official" positions will have less chances to be elected. If we want to open up the numbers, this is OK, more seats are offered every year anyway. But what else? And of course the first come first served approach if the recognized community leaders are more than the seats is a bit odd: to lighten up the discussion I cannot imagine people with the finger on the mouse waiting for the process to open in order to submit there nominations. Finally, for the voting process I completely disagree with the ability of a member to vote multiple times for the same person. This removes from the process the requirement of someone to be widely recognized within the community and potentially allows "a couple of friends" to elect whoever they want. I think that the discussion is interesting and thanks to the board and Arnulf :) for initiating it! I think that other solutions could also be considered if we feel that we need to differentiate on how charter members get elected, e.g. agree on a bonus percentage that a "community leader" gets when he goes through the standard process, so he still has to be voted by many... I apologize for the length of the e-mail and thanks for listening, Best regards, Dimitris Kotzinos Within 2 weeks we intend to start our annual process for selecting new OSGeo charter members. In previous years the Charter Member selection process has been a little contentious. We typically receive numerous nominations from high caliber members of our community, and insufficient positions to accept them all. This typically results in unnecessary disappointment and dissent. In response, the OSGeo board has agreed to trial tweaking the voting process. The aim is to automatically accept recognised OSGeo community leaders, while continuing with our existing process which attracts the many valuable community members who contribute in other ways. Community comments are encouraged, and will be considered over the next week. *Design guidelines:* * We want a process which is simple to understand and implement. * We want a process which encourages recognised OSGeo community leaders to become OSGeo charter members, while continuing to accept members from the many other valuable OSGeo roles. * We want a process which is difficult to abuse. * For the first iteration, we should err on being more selective in our criteria, with potential widening of selection criteria in future years.
