Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The final FOSS4G 2017 Boston Academic Proceedings are now available online; Future FOSS4G academic track committees -- consider using this system

[Suchith Anand]

Thank You Charlie and everyone in Academic Review committee who made this 
possible.

Having the Scholarworks paper review management and publishing system available 
for future FOSS4G conference academic proceedings (global, regional and local 
conferences) is a great contribution from the Boston LOC to the global 
community. I thank everyone in Boston LOC for their long term vision and 
efforts to make this possible. I am sure the community will make use of this to 
expand our ideas and impact for the future.

Best wishes,

Suchith


From: Discuss  on behalf of Charlie Schweik 

Sent: 23 September 2017 12:52 PM
To: Bigler Adrien; Aniruddha Ghosh; Anthony J. Corso; Anusuriya Devaraju; Atle 
Frenvik Sveen; Ryan Beare; Devika Kakkar; erwin.fol...@utwente.nl; Eunjung Lim; 
Fredrik Lindberg; Hyung-Gyu Ryoo; asanuma; Prof. Dr. Jörg Höttges; Laura 
Tateosian; lucy.bas...@ec.europa.eu; Marcella Samakovlija; g16005mm; Mario 
Giampieri; martin.album.ytre-e...@nrpa.no; MOHAMMED ZIA; oScAr ViQuEz; Paulo 
Cesar Coronado Sanchez; peter.lo...@gmx.de; Qing Liu; Rachael Guenter; Rich 
Fecher; Serge Rey; toss...@csis.u-tokyo.ac.jp; Lorenzo Booth; sarthak agarwal; 
Charlie Schweik; Ashley Tardif; Andy Anderson; OsGeo, GeoForAll; OSGeo 
Discussions
Cc: dc-supp...@bepress.com; Erin Jerome
Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] The final FOSS4G 2017 Boston Academic Proceedings are 
now available online; Future FOSS4G academic track committees -- consider using 
this system

Dear FOSS4G 2017 Boston Academic Proceedings authors, Academic Committee [1], 
and OSGeo and GeoForAll community,

The final peer-reviewed, published academic proceedings for FOSS4G 2017 Boston 
is now available at:

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/foss4g/vol17/iss1/


You can download either the full proceedings pdf (including posters), or 
individual papers. Each has a listed recommended citation. Relevant library 
search databases are getting fed the metadata through BePress' [3] Scholarworks 
publishing platform.  Following past practices, we also intend to make the 
proceedings available on the OSGeo journal website and we are working on 
getting the new OSGeo logo on the banner.

I want to thank everyone who contributed to these proceedings: the authors, the 
terrific academic review committee [1], UMass Amherst librarian Erin Jerome, 
Aurora Alder at BEPress [3], and especially to my co-editors Andy Anderson and 
Mohammed Zia. Zia deserves special thanks for his efforts. He's an 
exceptionally talented and capable individual.

Finally, we'd like to emphasize that this Scholarworks paper review management 
and publishing system, supported by BEPress [3] is now available for future 
FOSS4G conference academic proceedings, at no cost to OSGeo\GeoForAll. We 
implemented this system with the hope that it will be used for future FOSS4G 
conferences (such as FOSS4G NA 2018 or other upcoming FOSS4G conferences). We 
stand ready to teach this system works to future academic committee chair(s). 
Just contact me (cschw...@pubpol.umass.edu).

Cheers,

Charlie Schweik
(on behalf of our team: Mohammed Zia, Andy Anderson and Erin Jerome)

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2017#Academic_Committee
[2] http://scholarworks.umass.edu/foss4g/vol17/iss1/2/
[3] https://www.bepress.com/

--
Charlie Schweik

Professor
Department of Environmental Conservation &
School of Public Policy
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

"Make positive change in your sphere of influence." -- CMS




This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. 

Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
permitted by UK legislation.

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

[Eli Adam]

Hi Vasile,



On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Vasile Craciunescu
 wrote:
> Dear Eli,
>
> I appreciate your concerns related to OSGeo board elections. However, I have
> a few points to make. This year we had 2 CRO people, not just one. In your
> message on this topic you always make it sound like the CRO ended up in a
> conflict position and this is not entirely true. Actually, during the board

Correct, only Jeff in his role as CRO was a conflict of interest and
(in my opinion) violation of the procedure.  If you were not also a
CRO, then this truly would have been a governance crisis and lack any
shred of legitimacy.  It looks like you noted that you were a good
selection as your term runs for another year.  CROs used to always be
board members with another year remaining on their term thus making
nomination of the CRO impossible.

You've done a great job Vasile and none of your actions or work are
clouded by conflict of interest or violation of procedure.

> meeting when the CRO position was decided I was the one stepping up for this
> role. During that meeting Jeff was invited to manage this year Sol Katz
> award so he was also present. Next topic item was the CRO, the moment when
> Jeff offered his help for CRO, as he did in most of the previous years. The
> log is available at [1]. The board motion was to have two CRO for elections.
> And Jeff did an wonderful job during the new charter members nomination
> process. Then, Jeff stepped down immediately after his nomination for the
> board members elections. He never had access to the electronic voting system
> (that was setup a week later) and his access to c...@osgeo.org email was
> cutoff a few hours later. Personally I share your position that a CRO should
> not be in the situation to be nominated for a position in the elections that

One way to handle that would have been to not accept the nomination
since it did not follow procedure of where to send the nomination and
it was also a nomination of (one of) the CROs which is an additional
violation of procedure.  The Board also could have prevented this
possibility by not appointing a CRO who was able to accept a
nomination.

As you know, the CRO is a position of much work and responsibility and
also privy to lots of information that comes through to the CRO email
alias (you for instance know people who may have been nominated and
declined the nomination).  Being in that position in any portion of
the election process is more than enough to disqualify someone in my
opinion.

> he/she is managing. However, in this case, OSGeo had the position covered
> and the changes were done transparently. I know for a fact that Jeff din not
> think about a nomination when offered his help. It happen and he resign from
> his position to remove the conflict. At that moment I have asked Jorge for
> help for technical problems (not as co-CRO as this should require board
> acceptance and the time was short). All this elections discussions, starting
> with Jeff resignation, were performed through CRO email alias and I can make
> that public if any concerns regarding the impartiality/transparency of the
> elections are raised by you or by anyone else.
>
> Best,
> Vasile
> CRO 2017

In any case Vasile, you've done a great amount of work and continue to
do a good job.  It is clear that the Board sees this as a non-issue in
which case they've done their job.  We elect the Board to act (or not
act) on these issues and we have to live with the Board's actions (or
inactions).  In my opinion, it is not a legitimate election and such
loss of the rule of law in OSGeo could lead to trouble eventually.

Thanks for all your tireless work in this job.

Sorry to everyone on this list having to listen to yet another thread.
Hopefully we can return to our mostly productive work in the various
realms of OSGeo.

Best regards, Eli

>
>
> [1] http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2017-04-12.log
>
>
>
> On 10/18/17 10:15 PM, Eli Adam wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Jody Garnett 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Eli the board did not deliberate, you can see the board email list. I
>>> have
>>> been glad for individual such as yourself caring, speaking up, and
>>> hopefully
>>> attending the next board meeting.
>>>
>>
>> I thought that this issue might have been of enough concern for the
>> Board to deliberate it.  Indeed, I thought that Venka's earlier
>> comment was an indication that that might happen.
>>
>>
>>> I think we have all learned a lot this election period, and cannot thank
>>> the
>>> cro enough for keeping up.
>>>
>>
>> CRO is a very large and difficult job.  Yes, great thanks to the CROs.
>>
>>> I trust the next board meeting will provide an update from the cro and an
>>> opportunity for discussion. The board is in a strange situation during
>>> elections, handing over control of the process to the CRO, and with 1/2
>>> the
>>> participants at the end of their term. If you 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

[Vasile Craciunescu]

Dear Eli,

I appreciate your concerns related to OSGeo board elections. However, I 
have a few points to make. This year we had 2 CRO people, not just one. 
In your message on this topic you always make it sound like the CRO 
ended up in a conflict position and this is not entirely true. Actually, 
during the board meeting when the CRO position was decided I was the one 
stepping up for this role. During that meeting Jeff was invited to 
manage this year Sol Katz award so he was also present. Next topic item 
was the CRO, the moment when Jeff offered his help for CRO, as he did in 
most of the previous years. The log is available at [1]. The board 
motion was to have two CRO for elections. And Jeff did an wonderful job 
during the new charter members nomination process. Then, Jeff stepped 
down immediately after his nomination for the board members elections. 
He never had access to the electronic voting system (that was setup a 
week later) and his access to c...@osgeo.org email was cutoff a few hours 
later. Personally I share your position that a CRO should not be in the 
situation to be nominated for a position in the elections that he/she is 
managing. However, in this case, OSGeo had the position covered and the 
changes were done transparently. I know for a fact that Jeff din not 
think about a nomination when offered his help. It happen and he resign 
from his position to remove the conflict. At that moment I have asked 
Jorge for help for technical problems (not as co-CRO as this should 
require board acceptance and the time was short). All this elections 
discussions, starting with Jeff resignation, were performed through CRO 
email alias and I can make that public if any concerns regarding the 
impartiality/transparency of the elections are raised by you or by 
anyone else.


Best,
Vasile
CRO 2017


[1] http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2017-04-12.log


On 10/18/17 10:15 PM, Eli Adam wrote:

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Jody Garnett  wrote:

Eli the board did not deliberate, you can see the board email list. I have
been glad for individual such as yourself caring, speaking up, and hopefully
attending the next board meeting.



I thought that this issue might have been of enough concern for the
Board to deliberate it.  Indeed, I thought that Venka's earlier
comment was an indication that that might happen.



I think we have all learned a lot this election period, and cannot thank the
cro enough for keeping up.



CRO is a very large and difficult job.  Yes, great thanks to the CROs.


I trust the next board meeting will provide an update from the cro and an
opportunity for discussion. The board is in a strange situation during
elections, handing over control of the process to the CRO, and with 1/2 the
participants at the end of their term. If you track the most recent board
meetings several items have been deferred to the next board, so I understand
the board not feeling able to deliberate in the middle of elections.



Yes, the Board appoints the CRO(s) to run the elections for them.
While the Board can defer some things to future Boards (especially
future looking things), the Board is responsible for anything that
arises while they are on duty.


It is also important to trust the CRO to act in good faith on behalf of our
organization. I did speak up when I was concerned that member list had not
been updated and would interfere in the CRO performing their task - but that
was it.



I largely believe that once a task is delegated, that person has the
latitude to act.  In this case, I would have thought it was worth
deliberation and consultation with the CRO on how they want to run
elections that don't go exactly following the process.


This is a hard lesson to learn, when to deliberate and when to encourage.
Many of the deliberations about foss4g affordability were left until the
Boston F2F meeting, to avoid distracting from the excellent work being done
by the BLOC. If if well intentioned, deliberating during the course of an
activity can distract contributors and bring out feelings of "why bother". I
think this was the bickering referenced during the candidates debate
yesterday.

Finally as a candidate in this election I could not see a clear way to
deliberate the current election that would not be viewed as a personal
attack, or dismissed as campaigning.



This seems rather straight forward.  For the Board to deliberate this
manner fairly, directors like you who are running for reelection would
be obligated to show up for quorum and abstain from discussion and
voting.  The issue would be decided by the portion of the Board with
their term running until 2018 and those who are not running for
reelection.  But yes, I do see how you personally would be hampered
from really engaging this topic.

Best regards, Eli



--
Jody Garnett

On 18 October 2017 at 10:23, Eli Adam  wrote:


On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Jorge Sanz 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

[Venkatesh Raghavan]

Hi Eli,

With the aim of addressing you concern, the date of
nomination and Jeff's involvement, as co-CRO, in the
election was verified. Both these points were
back to you via the discuss list.

My understanding was that the procedures were followed
and therefore I did not request for the matter to be deliberated
by the board. Also, none of the other board member had
requested for the matter to be deliberated by the board.

Rather than matter being of no concern to the board, I think
that the others in the present board were also of the same opinion
as that stated by Mike below, and hence no further discussion
on this matter was taken up by the board.

Best

Venka

On 10/19/2017 4:36 AM, Michael Smith wrote:

What it says is that "The CRO is not eligible for election to the board
while serving as CRO". And that was followed. It doesn't say anything
about being nominated. Resigning from the position, allows Jeff to accept
the nomination. I'm not speaking for the board, just for myself. But in my
opinion, proper procedure was followed.

Mike

Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
treasu...@osgeo.org




-Original Message-
From: Eli Adam 
Reply-To: 
Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 3:26 PM
To: Michael Smith 
Cc: Jody Garnett , OSGeo Discussions
, CRO 
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna


On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Michael Smith
 wrote:

Frankly, as a current board member, from what I¹ve seen, everything was
properly followed. As soon as he was nominated, Jeff stepped down as co
CRO.
It was all above board and transparent.


So then perhaps I'm correct in concluding, in the absence of any Board
action on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination, I am left
to conclude that this issue is of no concern to the Board.

In my opinion, it would be worth the Board deliberating and taking a
position.  This goes back to my initial comment:

I don't think that you can nominate the CRO, nor can the CRO accept
your nomination, https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Chief_Returning_Officer.
In some past years the CRO was a sitting Board member with a year
remaining on their term thus avoiding this situation.

In my evaluation, the person offering the nomination failed in that
they not only did not follow the process but also nominated the CRO.
The CRO failed in that they accepted the position of CRO while there
was a possibility that they would run.  The CRO also failed in that
they then accepted a nomination.  And really it is the Board's failure
in my opinion:

It is really the Board's (and CRO's) responsibility to ensure that
this situation doesn't occur.  The Board should not appoint CROs who
might accept a nomination and people who might accept a nomination
should not accept appointment as CRO.  Maybe we should return to the
tradition of the CRO being a sitting Board member with a year
remaining on their term. CRO is a difficult job and much credit to
those who do it.

But these are just my opinions.  But I think that I am now correct in
concluding, in the absence of any Board action on the legitimacy of
the CRO accepting a nomination, this issue is of no concern to the
Board.

Best regards, Eli



Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 18, 2017, at 1:19 PM, Jody Garnett 
wrote:

Eli the board did not deliberate, you can see the board email list. I
have
been glad for individual such as yourself caring, speaking up, and
hopefully
attending the next board meeting.

I think we have all learned a lot this election period, and cannot
thank the
cro enough for keeping up.

I trust the next board meeting will provide an update from the cro and
an
opportunity for discussion. The board is in a strange situation during
elections, handing over control of the process to the CRO, and with 1/2
the
participants at the end of their term. If you track the most recent
board
meetings several items have been deferred to the next board, so I
understand
the board not feeling able to deliberate in the middle of elections.

It is also important to trust the CRO to act in good faith on behalf of
our
organization. I did speak up when I was concerned that member list had
not
been updated and would interfere in the CRO performing their task - but
that
was it.

This is a hard lesson to learn, when to deliberate and when to
encourage.
Many of the deliberations about foss4g affordability were left until the
Boston F2F meeting, to avoid distracting from the excellent work being
done
by the BLOC. If if well intentioned, deliberating during the course of
an
activity can distract contributors and bring out feelings of "why
bother". I
think this was the bickering referenced during the candidates debate
yesterday.

Finally as a candidate in this election I could not see a clear way to
deliberate the current election that 

[OSGeo-Discuss] Board elections status - day 1

[Vasile Craciunescu]

Dear all,

At the end of the first day of voting (I mean, end of the day for me, in 
Europe) we got exactly 100 votes (25.6%). I guess this is not bad. I 
encourage everyone to vote ASAP. After a number of reports, we know that 
an important number of members with Gmail e-mail accounts got the 
invitation in the spam folder. If you are using an Gmail account in your 
relation with OSGeo, please check your spam folder. On Monday I intend 
to do an effort an manually send voting links to all Gmail account that 
did note vote until that moment. You can save a lot of my time if you 
check your spam folder :)


Also, if you change your work place in the last year and you are not 
using the old email address please let me know to update our records. 
Generally is not a good practice to use your work e-mail address for 
your relation with OSGeo, as jobs can change with time. For the future 
elections I will recommend the board to change the new charter members 
nomination procedure and request the person who is nominating a 
candidate to forward the nominee personal email. This will save a lot of 
time for future CRO and will make the election process more smooth.


That's all for the moment. Thank you for your support for OSGeo! New 
updates in the days to follow.


Best,
Vasile
CRO 2017
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

[Michael Smith]

What it says is that "The CRO is not eligible for election to the board
while serving as CRO". And that was followed. It doesn't say anything
about being nominated. Resigning from the position, allows Jeff to accept
the nomination. I'm not speaking for the board, just for myself. But in my
opinion, proper procedure was followed.

Mike

Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
treasu...@osgeo.org




-Original Message-
From: Eli Adam 
Reply-To: 
Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 3:26 PM
To: Michael Smith 
Cc: Jody Garnett , OSGeo Discussions
, CRO 
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

>On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Michael Smith
> wrote:
>> Frankly, as a current board member, from what I¹ve seen, everything was
>> properly followed. As soon as he was nominated, Jeff stepped down as co
>>CRO.
>> It was all above board and transparent.
>>
>
>So then perhaps I'm correct in concluding, in the absence of any Board
>action on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination, I am left
>to conclude that this issue is of no concern to the Board.
>
>In my opinion, it would be worth the Board deliberating and taking a
>position.  This goes back to my initial comment:
>
>I don't think that you can nominate the CRO, nor can the CRO accept
>your nomination, https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Chief_Returning_Officer.
>In some past years the CRO was a sitting Board member with a year
>remaining on their term thus avoiding this situation.
>
>In my evaluation, the person offering the nomination failed in that
>they not only did not follow the process but also nominated the CRO.
>The CRO failed in that they accepted the position of CRO while there
>was a possibility that they would run.  The CRO also failed in that
>they then accepted a nomination.  And really it is the Board's failure
>in my opinion:
>
>It is really the Board's (and CRO's) responsibility to ensure that
>this situation doesn't occur.  The Board should not appoint CROs who
>might accept a nomination and people who might accept a nomination
>should not accept appointment as CRO.  Maybe we should return to the
>tradition of the CRO being a sitting Board member with a year
>remaining on their term. CRO is a difficult job and much credit to
>those who do it.
>
>But these are just my opinions.  But I think that I am now correct in
>concluding, in the absence of any Board action on the legitimacy of
>the CRO accepting a nomination, this issue is of no concern to the
>Board.
>
>Best regards, Eli
>
>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 18, 2017, at 1:19 PM, Jody Garnett 
>>wrote:
>>
>> Eli the board did not deliberate, you can see the board email list. I
>>have
>> been glad for individual such as yourself caring, speaking up, and
>>hopefully
>> attending the next board meeting.
>>
>> I think we have all learned a lot this election period, and cannot
>>thank the
>> cro enough for keeping up.
>>
>> I trust the next board meeting will provide an update from the cro and
>>an
>> opportunity for discussion. The board is in a strange situation during
>> elections, handing over control of the process to the CRO, and with 1/2
>>the
>> participants at the end of their term. If you track the most recent
>>board
>> meetings several items have been deferred to the next board, so I
>>understand
>> the board not feeling able to deliberate in the middle of elections.
>>
>> It is also important to trust the CRO to act in good faith on behalf of
>>our
>> organization. I did speak up when I was concerned that member list had
>>not
>> been updated and would interfere in the CRO performing their task - but
>>that
>> was it.
>>
>> This is a hard lesson to learn, when to deliberate and when to
>>encourage.
>> Many of the deliberations about foss4g affordability were left until the
>> Boston F2F meeting, to avoid distracting from the excellent work being
>>done
>> by the BLOC. If if well intentioned, deliberating during the course of
>>an
>> activity can distract contributors and bring out feelings of "why
>>bother". I
>> think this was the bickering referenced during the candidates debate
>> yesterday.
>>
>> Finally as a candidate in this election I could not see a clear way to
>> deliberate the current election that would not be viewed as a personal
>> attack, or dismissed as campaigning.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>> On 18 October 2017 at 10:23, Eli Adam  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Jorge Sanz  wrote:
>>> > HI Eli,
>>> >
>>> > If I recall correctly, we answered you that Jeff immediately resigned
>>> > from
>>> > his position as CRO and he has not been involved at all in any Board
>>> > elections CRO activity so everything is correctly handled except
>>>(and we
>>> > apologized for that) the 

[OSGeo-Discuss] The final FOSS4G 2017 Boston Academic Proceedings are now available online; Future FOSS4G academic track committees -- consider using this system

[Charlie Schweik]

Dear FOSS4G 2017 Boston Academic Proceedings authors, Academic Committee
[1], and OSGeo and GeoForAll community,

The final peer-reviewed, published academic proceedings for FOSS4G 2017
Boston is now available at:

*http://scholarworks.umass.edu/foss4g/vol17/iss1/
*

You can download either the full proceedings pdf (including posters), or
individual papers. Each has a listed recommended citation. Relevant library
search databases are getting fed the metadata through BePress' [3]
Scholarworks publishing platform.  Following past practices, we also intend
to make the proceedings available on the OSGeo journal website and we are
working on getting the new OSGeo logo on the banner.

I want to thank everyone who contributed to these proceedings: the authors,
the terrific academic review committee [1], UMass Amherst librarian Erin
Jerome, Aurora Alder at BEPress [3], and especially to my co-editors Andy
Anderson and Mohammed Zia. Zia deserves special thanks for his efforts.
He's an exceptionally talented and capable individual.

Finally, we'd like to emphasize that this Scholarworks paper review
management and publishing system, supported by BEPress [3] is now available
for future FOSS4G conference academic proceedings, at no cost to
OSGeo\GeoForAll. We implemented this system with the hope that it will be
used for future FOSS4G conferences (such as FOSS4G NA 2018 or other
upcoming FOSS4G conferences). We stand ready to teach this system works to
future academic committee chair(s). Just contact me (
cschw...@pubpol.umass.edu).

Cheers,

Charlie Schweik
(on behalf of our team: Mohammed Zia, Andy Anderson and Erin Jerome)

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2017#Academic_Committee
[2] http://scholarworks.umass.edu/foss4g/vol17/iss1/2/
[3] https://www.bepress.com/
-- 
Charlie Schweik

Professor
Department of Environmental Conservation &
School of Public Policy
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

"Make positive change in your sphere of influence." -- CMS
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

[Eli Adam]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Michael Smith
 wrote:
> Frankly, as a current board member, from what I’ve seen, everything was
> properly followed. As soon as he was nominated, Jeff stepped down as co CRO.
> It was all above board and transparent.
>

So then perhaps I'm correct in concluding, in the absence of any Board
action on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination, I am left
to conclude that this issue is of no concern to the Board.

In my opinion, it would be worth the Board deliberating and taking a
position.  This goes back to my initial comment:

I don't think that you can nominate the CRO, nor can the CRO accept
your nomination, https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Chief_Returning_Officer.
In some past years the CRO was a sitting Board member with a year
remaining on their term thus avoiding this situation.

In my evaluation, the person offering the nomination failed in that
they not only did not follow the process but also nominated the CRO.
The CRO failed in that they accepted the position of CRO while there
was a possibility that they would run.  The CRO also failed in that
they then accepted a nomination.  And really it is the Board's failure
in my opinion:

It is really the Board's (and CRO's) responsibility to ensure that
this situation doesn't occur.  The Board should not appoint CROs who
might accept a nomination and people who might accept a nomination
should not accept appointment as CRO.  Maybe we should return to the
tradition of the CRO being a sitting Board member with a year
remaining on their term. CRO is a difficult job and much credit to
those who do it.

But these are just my opinions.  But I think that I am now correct in
concluding, in the absence of any Board action on the legitimacy of
the CRO accepting a nomination, this issue is of no concern to the
Board.

Best regards, Eli


> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 18, 2017, at 1:19 PM, Jody Garnett  wrote:
>
> Eli the board did not deliberate, you can see the board email list. I have
> been glad for individual such as yourself caring, speaking up, and hopefully
> attending the next board meeting.
>
> I think we have all learned a lot this election period, and cannot thank the
> cro enough for keeping up.
>
> I trust the next board meeting will provide an update from the cro and an
> opportunity for discussion. The board is in a strange situation during
> elections, handing over control of the process to the CRO, and with 1/2 the
> participants at the end of their term. If you track the most recent board
> meetings several items have been deferred to the next board, so I understand
> the board not feeling able to deliberate in the middle of elections.
>
> It is also important to trust the CRO to act in good faith on behalf of our
> organization. I did speak up when I was concerned that member list had not
> been updated and would interfere in the CRO performing their task - but that
> was it.
>
> This is a hard lesson to learn, when to deliberate and when to encourage.
> Many of the deliberations about foss4g affordability were left until the
> Boston F2F meeting, to avoid distracting from the excellent work being done
> by the BLOC. If if well intentioned, deliberating during the course of an
> activity can distract contributors and bring out feelings of "why bother". I
> think this was the bickering referenced during the candidates debate
> yesterday.
>
> Finally as a candidate in this election I could not see a clear way to
> deliberate the current election that would not be viewed as a personal
> attack, or dismissed as campaigning.
>
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 18 October 2017 at 10:23, Eli Adam  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Jorge Sanz  wrote:
>> > HI Eli,
>> >
>> > If I recall correctly, we answered you that Jeff immediately resigned
>> > from
>> > his position as CRO and he has not been involved at all in any Board
>> > elections CRO activity so everything is correctly handled except (and we
>> > apologized for that) the lack of a Trac ticket for the alias change.
>>
>> Thanks Jorge.  I know those are the events that happened, however, I
>> never saw the Board deliberate and consider whether that is acceptable
>> or not.  In my opinion, it is not, however I'm not on the Board, nor
>> is one Director's opinion a position of the Board.  In the absence of
>> any Board action on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination,
>> I was left to conclude "that this issue is of no concern to the
>> Board."
>>
>> Has the Board deliberated or considered this?  Did they take a position?
>>
>> The reason to have a process and follow it even when you maybe don't
>> "need" it, is so that you also follow the process when you *do* need
>> it.
>>
>> Best regards, Eli
>>
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 18 October 2017 at 18:07, Eli Adam  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Venka, all,
>> >>
>> >> 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

[Michael Smith]

Frankly, as a current board member, from what I’ve seen, everything was 
properly followed. As soon as he was nominated, Jeff stepped down as co CRO. It 
was all above board and transparent. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 18, 2017, at 1:19 PM, Jody Garnett  wrote:
> 
> Eli the board did not deliberate, you can see the board email list. I have 
> been glad for individual such as yourself caring, speaking up, and hopefully 
> attending the next board meeting. 
> 
> I think we have all learned a lot this election period, and cannot thank the 
> cro enough for keeping up.
> 
> I trust the next board meeting will provide an update from the cro and an 
> opportunity for discussion. The board is in a strange situation during 
> elections, handing over control of the process to the CRO, and with 1/2 the 
> participants at the end of their term. If you track the most recent board 
> meetings several items have been deferred to the next board, so I understand 
> the board not feeling able to deliberate in the middle of elections. 
> 
> It is also important to trust the CRO to act in good faith on behalf of our 
> organization. I did speak up when I was concerned that member list had not 
> been updated and would interfere in the CRO performing their task - but that 
> was it.
> 
> This is a hard lesson to learn, when to deliberate and when to encourage. 
> Many of the deliberations about foss4g affordability were left until the 
> Boston F2F meeting, to avoid distracting from the excellent work being done 
> by the BLOC. If if well intentioned, deliberating during the course of an 
> activity can distract contributors and bring out feelings of "why bother". I 
> think this was the bickering referenced during the candidates debate 
> yesterday.
> 
> Finally as a candidate in this election I could not see a clear way to 
> deliberate the current election that would not be viewed as a personal 
> attack, or dismissed as campaigning.
> 
> 
> --
> Jody Garnett
> 
>> On 18 October 2017 at 10:23, Eli Adam  wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Jorge Sanz  wrote:
>> > HI Eli,
>> >
>> > If I recall correctly, we answered you that Jeff immediately resigned from
>> > his position as CRO and he has not been involved at all in any Board
>> > elections CRO activity so everything is correctly handled except (and we
>> > apologized for that) the lack of a Trac ticket for the alias change.
>> 
>> Thanks Jorge.  I know those are the events that happened, however, I
>> never saw the Board deliberate and consider whether that is acceptable
>> or not.  In my opinion, it is not, however I'm not on the Board, nor
>> is one Director's opinion a position of the Board.  In the absence of
>> any Board action on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination,
>> I was left to conclude "that this issue is of no concern to the
>> Board."
>> 
>> Has the Board deliberated or considered this?  Did they take a position?
>> 
>> The reason to have a process and follow it even when you maybe don't
>> "need" it, is so that you also follow the process when you *do* need
>> it.
>> 
>> Best regards, Eli
>> 
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 18 October 2017 at 18:07, Eli Adam  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Venka, all,
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Eli Adam  wrote:
>> >> > Hi Venka,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
>> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Eli,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> First of all, thanks to Jorge for volunteering to be co-CRO
>> >> >> and fixing the CRO alias promptly.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, thanks Jorge.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regarding your other comment reproduced below;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Board did not appear to review this topic at
>> >> >> their last meeting,
>> >> >> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2017-10-05, so perhaps it is
>> >> >> of no concern to the Board.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The question of review this topic at the 2017-10-05 board meeting did
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> arise
>> >> >> as the nomination for our ex-co-CRO was filed on 2017-10-08.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for fixing my mistake, I misunderstood the dates and thought
>> >> > that nomination for our ex-co-CRO was filed on 2017-10-01.  Sorry to
>> >> > suggest that it was of no concern to the Board when it is actually
>> >> > unknown.
>> >>
>> >> It appears that voting has now started and I don't see any Board
>> >> threads on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination,
>> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2017-October/thread.html
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would like to assure you that I share your concern about the proper
>> >> >> process.
>> >> >
>> >> > Great, I hope that the Board follows the proper process.  I'll stop
>> >> > making noise and allow the proper process to work.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Should I now conclude that this issue is of 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

[Jody Garnett]

Eli the board did not deliberate, you can see the board email list. I have
been glad for individual such as yourself caring, speaking up, and
hopefully attending the next board meeting.

I think we have all learned a lot this election period, and cannot thank
the cro enough for keeping up.

I trust the next board meeting will provide an update from the cro and an
opportunity for discussion. The board is in a strange situation during
elections, handing over control of the process to the CRO, and with 1/2 the
participants at the end of their term. If you track the most recent board
meetings several items have been deferred to the next board, so I
understand the board not feeling able to deliberate in the middle of
elections.

It is also important to trust the CRO to act in good faith on behalf of our
organization. I did speak up when I was concerned that member list had not
been updated and would interfere in the CRO performing their task - but
that was it.

This is a hard lesson to learn, when to deliberate and when to encourage.
Many of the deliberations about foss4g affordability were left until the
Boston F2F meeting, to avoid distracting from the excellent work being done
by the BLOC. If if well intentioned, deliberating during the course of an
activity can distract contributors and bring out feelings of "why bother".
I think this was the bickering referenced during the candidates debate
yesterday.

Finally as a candidate in this election I could not see a clear way to
deliberate the current election that would not be viewed as a personal
attack, or dismissed as campaigning.


--
Jody Garnett

On 18 October 2017 at 10:23, Eli Adam  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Jorge Sanz  wrote:
> > HI Eli,
> >
> > If I recall correctly, we answered you that Jeff immediately resigned
> from
> > his position as CRO and he has not been involved at all in any Board
> > elections CRO activity so everything is correctly handled except (and we
> > apologized for that) the lack of a Trac ticket for the alias change.
>
> Thanks Jorge.  I know those are the events that happened, however, I
> never saw the Board deliberate and consider whether that is acceptable
> or not.  In my opinion, it is not, however I'm not on the Board, nor
> is one Director's opinion a position of the Board.  In the absence of
> any Board action on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination,
> I was left to conclude "that this issue is of no concern to the
> Board."
>
> Has the Board deliberated or considered this?  Did they take a position?
>
> The reason to have a process and follow it even when you maybe don't
> "need" it, is so that you also follow the process when you *do* need
> it.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18 October 2017 at 18:07, Eli Adam  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Venka, all,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Eli Adam 
> wrote:
> >> > Hi Venka,
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
> >> >  wrote:
> >> >> Hi Eli,
> >> >>
> >> >> First of all, thanks to Jorge for volunteering to be co-CRO
> >> >> and fixing the CRO alias promptly.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, thanks Jorge.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Regarding your other comment reproduced below;
> >> >>
> >> >> The Board did not appear to review this topic at
> >> >> their last meeting,
> >> >> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2017-10-05, so perhaps it
> is
> >> >> of no concern to the Board.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The question of review this topic at the 2017-10-05 board meeting did
> >> >> not
> >> >> arise
> >> >> as the nomination for our ex-co-CRO was filed on 2017-10-08.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for fixing my mistake, I misunderstood the dates and thought
> >> > that nomination for our ex-co-CRO was filed on 2017-10-01.  Sorry to
> >> > suggest that it was of no concern to the Board when it is actually
> >> > unknown.
> >>
> >> It appears that voting has now started and I don't see any Board
> >> threads on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination,
> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2017-October/thread.html
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to assure you that I share your concern about the proper
> >> >> process.
> >> >
> >> > Great, I hope that the Board follows the proper process.  I'll stop
> >> > making noise and allow the proper process to work.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Should I now conclude that this issue is of no concern to the Board?
> >>
> >> Best regards, Eli
> >>
> >>
> >> > Best regards, Eli
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Best
> >> >>
> >> >> Venka
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 10/12/2017 1:58 AM, Jorge Sanz wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Eli,
> >> >>
> >> >> I did it yesterday without having a ticket involved. My bad sorry.
> >> >>
> >> >> I confirm that the CRO alias is now sending emails only to Vasile and
> >> >> me.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jorge Sanz
> >> >> 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Costly FOSS4Gs

[Nonie Castro]

Just a thought – this year NACIS livestreamed their entire 
conference to their members.

Maybe charging a fee to receive streams of the FOSS4G sessions would allow some 
people to attend that couldn’t otherwise afford to.
I count myself in that number.

Thank you,
Nonie

[cid:image005.png@01D3481A.5632B670][cid:image007.png@01D0632F.7C5C2250]


Nonie Castro
Senior GIS Specialist

nonie_cas...@valpak.com
valpak.com



From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Aime
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 3:30 AM
To: Bruce Bannerman
Cc: discuss
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Costly FOSS4Gs

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Bruce Bannerman 
> wrote:
When you look at the costs associated with a person attending a typical 
international FOSS4G event, the actual conference fees a small amount of the 
actual cost.

Consider airfares, transportation, accomodation, meals, lost wages etc. There 
is nothing that an LOC can do about these individual costs.

Ah hem, nothing that the LOC can do once the conference site is chosen, but 
something that OSGeo can do when assigning the location and timing.
And I believe that is happening, if I'm not wrong for the first time the LOC 
needs to provide expected cost of airfare and accommodation as part
of their proposal, which will make people consider carefully that aspect too.

Another aspect that was not cited but that I heard in conversations and believe 
is important, it's that it is really hard to compress
the cost of a large conference: the LOC needs a place that can host 1000 
people, and that can give internet to this many people,
that places forces the catering package on you (I've been told by several 
conference chairs there no way to dodge that) and the
two together make up for a large amount of the cost.

So, besides some exceptions (think FOSDEM) it seems the only way to setup a 
cheaper conference is to make a smaller
one that can be hosted at a university or in a smaller conference center. Hence 
the focus on the local conferences.
I believe the threshold is at around 500 people, larger than that one is hung 
on the costly options.

Cheers
Andrea

==

GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V 
for more information.
==

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054  Massarosa (LU)
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39  339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003

Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i 
file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo 
è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità 
indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne 
il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di 
procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro 
sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche in parte, 
distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, 
costituisce comportamento contrario ai principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.

The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for the 
attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or 
proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act (Legislative 
Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection Code).Any use not in 
accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, 
or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is strictly forbidden except 
previous formal approval of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail 
and delete the information in this message that has been received in error. The 
sender does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy 
or completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility  for changes 
made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of e-mail 
transmission, viruses, etc.

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

[Eli Adam]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Jorge Sanz  wrote:
> HI Eli,
>
> If I recall correctly, we answered you that Jeff immediately resigned from
> his position as CRO and he has not been involved at all in any Board
> elections CRO activity so everything is correctly handled except (and we
> apologized for that) the lack of a Trac ticket for the alias change.

Thanks Jorge.  I know those are the events that happened, however, I
never saw the Board deliberate and consider whether that is acceptable
or not.  In my opinion, it is not, however I'm not on the Board, nor
is one Director's opinion a position of the Board.  In the absence of
any Board action on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination,
I was left to conclude "that this issue is of no concern to the
Board."

Has the Board deliberated or considered this?  Did they take a position?

The reason to have a process and follow it even when you maybe don't
"need" it, is so that you also follow the process when you *do* need
it.

Best regards, Eli

>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> On 18 October 2017 at 18:07, Eli Adam  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Venka, all,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Eli Adam  wrote:
>> > Hi Venka,
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
>> >  wrote:
>> >> Hi Eli,
>> >>
>> >> First of all, thanks to Jorge for volunteering to be co-CRO
>> >> and fixing the CRO alias promptly.
>> >
>> > Yes, thanks Jorge.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Regarding your other comment reproduced below;
>> >>
>> >> The Board did not appear to review this topic at
>> >> their last meeting,
>> >> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2017-10-05, so perhaps it is
>> >> of no concern to the Board.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The question of review this topic at the 2017-10-05 board meeting did
>> >> not
>> >> arise
>> >> as the nomination for our ex-co-CRO was filed on 2017-10-08.
>> >
>> > Thanks for fixing my mistake, I misunderstood the dates and thought
>> > that nomination for our ex-co-CRO was filed on 2017-10-01.  Sorry to
>> > suggest that it was of no concern to the Board when it is actually
>> > unknown.
>>
>> It appears that voting has now started and I don't see any Board
>> threads on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination,
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2017-October/thread.html
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I would like to assure you that I share your concern about the proper
>> >> process.
>> >
>> > Great, I hope that the Board follows the proper process.  I'll stop
>> > making noise and allow the proper process to work.
>> >
>>
>> Should I now conclude that this issue is of no concern to the Board?
>>
>> Best regards, Eli
>>
>>
>> > Best regards, Eli
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Best
>> >>
>> >> Venka
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 10/12/2017 1:58 AM, Jorge Sanz wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Eli,
>> >>
>> >> I did it yesterday without having a ticket involved. My bad sorry.
>> >>
>> >> I confirm that the CRO alias is now sending emails only to Vasile and
>> >> me.
>> >> --
>> >> Jorge Sanz
>> >> https://jorgesanz.net
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my phone, excuse my brevity and typos
>> >>
>> >> El 11 oct. 2017 18:36, "Eli Adam"  escribió:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Fenoy Gerald 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear Eli,
>> >> as you may have notice, Jeff has stepped down from his position of
>> >>
>> >> co-CRO when accepting the Nicolas’ nomination [1].
>> >>
>> >> I didn't find that thread while scanning through the archive.  Thanks
>> >> for pointing it out to me.
>> >>
>> >> Jeff was involved in the charter member election process as co-CRO but
>> >>
>> >> he is no more so, I guess, there is no issue for the board election.
>> >>
>> >> Was the c...@osgeo.org email alias updated?  I didn't notice a ticket
>> >> for that.  I'm impressed that there is so little concern about the
>> >> proper process.  The Board did not appear to review this topic at
>> >> their last meeting,
>> >> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2017-10-05, so perhaps it is
>> >> of no concern to the Board.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards, Eli
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >>
>> >> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2017-October/036449.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Gérald Fenoy
>> >> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Djay
>> >>
>> >> Le 11 oct. 2017 à 16:04, Eli Adam  a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> Nicolas,
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:48 PM, nicolas bozon 
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It is my honor to nominate Jeff McKenna for the OSGeo Board of
>> >>
>> >> Directors
>> >>
>> >> election.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think that you can nominate the CRO, nor can the CRO accept
>> >> your nomination, https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Chief_Returning_Officer.
>> >> In some past years the CRO was a sitting Board member with a year
>> >> remaining on their term thus avoiding this situation.
>> >>
>> >> Most 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board elections time

[Eli Adam]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Vasile Craciunescu
 wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Based on the feedback received from two of our members (thank you Dimitris
> and Gert-Jan), I did a small change in the voting system. The change is on
> the number of votes than one can cast. The initial system was maximum 5,
> minimum 5, which does not make sense if you want to abstain on more than 5
> nominations (the rule was inherit from the survey template used last year).
> Also, according to our process rules  "You can cast up to 5 votes, for 5
> different people." [1]. Now, before making this change, 35 people already

Probably leave it until next year, but [1] is in error; it does not
need to be for *different* people.  The bylaws
http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html [2]
provide:

Section 8.9. Voting. Each member (except emeritus members) shall be
entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote at a meeting
of the members, except in the case of election of directors or as may
otherwise be provided in the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware. If a quorum is present, the affirmative vote of a majority
of the members represented at the meeting and entitled to vote on the
subject matter shall be the act of the members, unless the vote of a
greater number is required by the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware or by the Certificate of Incorporation or by these Bylaws.

In connection with the election of Directors, each member (except
emeritus members) shall be entitled to one vote for each vacancy on
the Board of Directors to be filled. Members of the Board of Directors
shall be elected by the affirmative vote of a plurality of the votes
of the members present in person or proxy, including through remote
communication, at the meeting and entitled to vote on the election of
the Board of Directors. Each member entitled to vote in an election of
Directors may cumulate his or her votes by distributing among one or
more candidates as many votes as are equal to the number of Director
vacancies to be filled in the election.

Andy also raised some good ideas.  Perhaps we need to review this further.


Best regards, Eli


> voted. The votes are anonymized but I can go through Limesurvey setting to
> check if is possible to reset someone votes. Please let me know on
> c...@osgeo.org if you already voted and you were unhappy with the fact that
> the system forced you to cast 5 votes.
>
> Best,
> Vasile
> CRO 2017
>
> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2017

[2] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html

>
>
> On 10/18/17 11:57 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
>>
>> Dear charter members,
>>
>> It's time to vote for our new members of the board of directors. Like in
>> the previous years, an electronic voting system was setup. In minutes from
>> now, emails with personal voting links will be sent to all our charter
>> members. If you don't receive your voting link in the next couple of hours
>> please let me know at c...@osgeo.org. Before doing that please also check
>> your "Spam" folder. Sending hundreds of messages at once is not easy and it
>> can be interpreted as spam by some of the filtering systems. Also, sometimes
>> the e-mail addresses change but the charter member contact database is not
>> up to date. I will try to contact all the members with bounced invitations
>> via alternative email/twitter/linkedin/etc to update the email account and
>> to make sure that are able to vote.
>>
>> Thank you for supporting OSGeo!
>>
>> Best,
>> Vasile
>> CRO 2017
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://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
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

[Jorge Sanz]

HI Eli,

If I recall correctly, we answered you that Jeff immediately resigned from
his position as CRO and he has not been involved at all in any Board
elections CRO activity so everything is correctly handled except (and we
apologized for that) the lack of a Trac ticket for the alias change.

Kind regards



On 18 October 2017 at 18:07, Eli Adam  wrote:

> Hi Venka, all,
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Eli Adam  wrote:
> > Hi Venka,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
> >  wrote:
> >> Hi Eli,
> >>
> >> First of all, thanks to Jorge for volunteering to be co-CRO
> >> and fixing the CRO alias promptly.
> >
> > Yes, thanks Jorge.
> >
> >>
> >> Regarding your other comment reproduced below;
> >>
> >> The Board did not appear to review this topic at
> >> their last meeting,
> >> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2017-10-05, so perhaps it is
> >> of no concern to the Board.
> >>
> >>
> >> The question of review this topic at the 2017-10-05 board meeting did
> not
> >> arise
> >> as the nomination for our ex-co-CRO was filed on 2017-10-08.
> >
> > Thanks for fixing my mistake, I misunderstood the dates and thought
> > that nomination for our ex-co-CRO was filed on 2017-10-01.  Sorry to
> > suggest that it was of no concern to the Board when it is actually
> > unknown.
>
> It appears that voting has now started and I don't see any Board
> threads on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination,
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2017-October/thread.html
>
> >
> >>
> >> I would like to assure you that I share your concern about the proper
> >> process.
> >
> > Great, I hope that the Board follows the proper process.  I'll stop
> > making noise and allow the proper process to work.
> >
>
> Should I now conclude that this issue is of no concern to the Board?
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
> > Best regards, Eli
> >
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Venka
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/12/2017 1:58 AM, Jorge Sanz wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Eli,
> >>
> >> I did it yesterday without having a ticket involved. My bad sorry.
> >>
> >> I confirm that the CRO alias is now sending emails only to Vasile and
> me.
> >> --
> >> Jorge Sanz
> >> https://jorgesanz.net
> >>
> >> Sent from my phone, excuse my brevity and typos
> >>
> >> El 11 oct. 2017 18:36, "Eli Adam"  escribió:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Fenoy Gerald 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Eli,
> >> as you may have notice, Jeff has stepped down from his position of
> >>
> >> co-CRO when accepting the Nicolas’ nomination [1].
> >>
> >> I didn't find that thread while scanning through the archive.  Thanks
> >> for pointing it out to me.
> >>
> >> Jeff was involved in the charter member election process as co-CRO but
> >>
> >> he is no more so, I guess, there is no issue for the board election.
> >>
> >> Was the c...@osgeo.org email alias updated?  I didn't notice a ticket
> >> for that.  I'm impressed that there is so little concern about the
> >> proper process.  The Board did not appear to review this topic at
> >> their last meeting,
> >> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2017-10-05, so perhaps it is
> >> of no concern to the Board.
> >>
> >> Best regards, Eli
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2017-October/036449.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Gérald Fenoy
> >> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Djay
> >>
> >> Le 11 oct. 2017 à 16:04, Eli Adam  a écrit :
> >>
> >> Nicolas,
> >>
> >> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:48 PM, nicolas bozon 
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> It is my honor to nominate Jeff McKenna for the OSGeo Board of
> >>
> >> Directors
> >>
> >> election.
> >>
> >> I don't think that you can nominate the CRO, nor can the CRO accept
> >> your nomination, https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Chief_Returning_Officer.
> >> In some past years the CRO was a sitting Board member with a year
> >> remaining on their term thus avoiding this situation.
> >>
> >> Most of you knows Jeff's energy and passion for everything OSGeo, and i
> >> would probably be mistaken trying to summarize his countless
> >>
> >> contributions
> >>
> >> over the years, at every level of our Foundation. His leadership and
> >>
> >> long
> >>
> >> involvement in the OSGeo and FOSS4G communities made him the Winner of
> >>
> >> the
> >>
> >> Solz Katz Award in 2016, and i cannot add more. For those of you who
> >>
> >> may
> >>
> >> really not know Jeff yet, the User:Jeff_McKenna wiki page is a good
> >>
> >> read
> >>
> >> before you vote.
> >>
> >> Jeff already served three times at the board and has a deep
> >>
> >> understanding of
> >>
> >> both the director role and the current OSGeo strategic plan.
> >>
> >> Experienced
> >>
> >> with OSGeo governance and bylaws, Jeff also knows a lot about projects
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> people. He is always ready to 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

[Eli Adam]

Hi Venka, all,

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Eli Adam  wrote:
> Hi Venka,
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
>  wrote:
>> Hi Eli,
>>
>> First of all, thanks to Jorge for volunteering to be co-CRO
>> and fixing the CRO alias promptly.
>
> Yes, thanks Jorge.
>
>>
>> Regarding your other comment reproduced below;
>>
>> The Board did not appear to review this topic at
>> their last meeting,
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2017-10-05, so perhaps it is
>> of no concern to the Board.
>>
>>
>> The question of review this topic at the 2017-10-05 board meeting did not
>> arise
>> as the nomination for our ex-co-CRO was filed on 2017-10-08.
>
> Thanks for fixing my mistake, I misunderstood the dates and thought
> that nomination for our ex-co-CRO was filed on 2017-10-01.  Sorry to
> suggest that it was of no concern to the Board when it is actually
> unknown.

It appears that voting has now started and I don't see any Board
threads on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination,
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2017-October/thread.html

>
>>
>> I would like to assure you that I share your concern about the proper
>> process.
>
> Great, I hope that the Board follows the proper process.  I'll stop
> making noise and allow the proper process to work.
>

Should I now conclude that this issue is of no concern to the Board?

Best regards, Eli


> Best regards, Eli
>
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Venka
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2017 1:58 AM, Jorge Sanz wrote:
>>
>> Hi Eli,
>>
>> I did it yesterday without having a ticket involved. My bad sorry.
>>
>> I confirm that the CRO alias is now sending emails only to Vasile and me.
>> --
>> Jorge Sanz
>> https://jorgesanz.net
>>
>> Sent from my phone, excuse my brevity and typos
>>
>> El 11 oct. 2017 18:36, "Eli Adam"  escribió:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Fenoy Gerald 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Eli,
>> as you may have notice, Jeff has stepped down from his position of
>>
>> co-CRO when accepting the Nicolas’ nomination [1].
>>
>> I didn't find that thread while scanning through the archive.  Thanks
>> for pointing it out to me.
>>
>> Jeff was involved in the charter member election process as co-CRO but
>>
>> he is no more so, I guess, there is no issue for the board election.
>>
>> Was the c...@osgeo.org email alias updated?  I didn't notice a ticket
>> for that.  I'm impressed that there is so little concern about the
>> proper process.  The Board did not appear to review this topic at
>> their last meeting,
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2017-10-05, so perhaps it is
>> of no concern to the Board.
>>
>> Best regards, Eli
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2017-October/036449.html
>>
>>
>> Gérald Fenoy
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Djay
>>
>> Le 11 oct. 2017 à 16:04, Eli Adam  a écrit :
>>
>> Nicolas,
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:48 PM, nicolas bozon 
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It is my honor to nominate Jeff McKenna for the OSGeo Board of
>>
>> Directors
>>
>> election.
>>
>> I don't think that you can nominate the CRO, nor can the CRO accept
>> your nomination, https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Chief_Returning_Officer.
>> In some past years the CRO was a sitting Board member with a year
>> remaining on their term thus avoiding this situation.
>>
>> Most of you knows Jeff's energy and passion for everything OSGeo, and i
>> would probably be mistaken trying to summarize his countless
>>
>> contributions
>>
>> over the years, at every level of our Foundation. His leadership and
>>
>> long
>>
>> involvement in the OSGeo and FOSS4G communities made him the Winner of
>>
>> the
>>
>> Solz Katz Award in 2016, and i cannot add more. For those of you who
>>
>> may
>>
>> really not know Jeff yet, the User:Jeff_McKenna wiki page is a good
>>
>> read
>>
>> before you vote.
>>
>> Jeff already served three times at the board and has a deep
>>
>> understanding of
>>
>> both the director role and the current OSGeo strategic plan.
>>
>> Experienced
>>
>> with OSGeo governance and bylaws, Jeff also knows a lot about projects
>>
>> and
>>
>> people. He is always ready to help build locally and to represent
>>
>> globally.
>>
>> Jeff is a great communicator and enthusiastic community leader, and i
>> believe he will be an excellent OSGeo director again. Please let us all
>> welcome Jeff back at the Board!
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Nicolas Bozon
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Jeff McKenna agreed to be nominated and i decided to send the
>>
>> nomination
>>
>> directly to the Discuss list with cc to CRO, so it avoids Jeff to
>>
>> confirm to
>>
>> himself that he accepts the nomination. The Board Nominations page
>>
>> still
>>
>> need to be updated, could you please Vasile ? Sorry for shortening the
>> nomination 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board elections time

[Vasile Craciunescu]

The change was to lower the minimum number of votes to 1. Sorry for not 
including the information in previous message.


-Vasile
CRO 2017

On 10/18/17 1:42 PM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:

Dear all,

Based on the feedback received from two of our members (thank you 
Dimitris and Gert-Jan), I did a small change in the voting system. The 
change is on the number of votes than one can cast. The initial system 
was maximum 5, minimum 5, which does not make sense if you want to 
abstain on more than 5 nominations (the rule was inherit from the survey 
template used last year). Also, according to our process rules  "You can 
cast up to 5 votes, for 5 different people." [1]. Now, before making 
this change, 35 people already voted. The votes are anonymized but I can 
go through Limesurvey setting to check if is possible to reset someone 
votes. Please let me know on c...@osgeo.org if you already voted and you 
were unhappy with the fact that the system forced you to cast 5 votes.


Best,
Vasile
CRO 2017

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2017

On 10/18/17 11:57 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:

Dear charter members,

It's time to vote for our new members of the board of directors. Like 
in the previous years, an electronic voting system was setup. In 
minutes from now, emails with personal voting links will be sent to 
all our charter members. If you don't receive your voting link in the 
next couple of hours please let me know at c...@osgeo.org. Before doing 
that please also check your "Spam" folder. Sending hundreds of 
messages at once is not easy and it can be interpreted as spam by some 
of the filtering systems. Also, sometimes the e-mail addresses change 
but the charter member contact database is not up to date. I will try 
to contact all the members with bounced invitations via alternative 
email/twitter/linkedin/etc to update the email account and to make 
sure that are able to vote.


Thank you for supporting OSGeo!

Best,
Vasile
CRO 2017
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://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
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board elections time

[Vasile Craciunescu]

Dear all,

Based on the feedback received from two of our members (thank you 
Dimitris and Gert-Jan), I did a small change in the voting system. The 
change is on the number of votes than one can cast. The initial system 
was maximum 5, minimum 5, which does not make sense if you want to 
abstain on more than 5 nominations (the rule was inherit from the survey 
template used last year). Also, according to our process rules  "You can 
cast up to 5 votes, for 5 different people." [1]. Now, before making 
this change, 35 people already voted. The votes are anonymized but I can 
go through Limesurvey setting to check if is possible to reset someone 
votes. Please let me know on c...@osgeo.org if you already voted and you 
were unhappy with the fact that the system forced you to cast 5 votes.


Best,
Vasile
CRO 2017

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2017

On 10/18/17 11:57 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:

Dear charter members,

It's time to vote for our new members of the board of directors. Like in 
the previous years, an electronic voting system was setup. In minutes 
from now, emails with personal voting links will be sent to all our 
charter members. If you don't receive your voting link in the next 
couple of hours please let me know at c...@osgeo.org. Before doing that 
please also check your "Spam" folder. Sending hundreds of messages at 
once is not easy and it can be interpreted as spam by some of the 
filtering systems. Also, sometimes the e-mail addresses change but the 
charter member contact database is not up to date. I will try to contact 
all the members with bounced invitations via alternative 
email/twitter/linkedin/etc to update the email account and to make sure 
that are able to vote.


Thank you for supporting OSGeo!

Best,
Vasile
CRO 2017
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://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
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board elections time

[Dirk Frigne]

Vasile,

I think for the new *GDPR*[1] regulation coming into force into Europe
for privacy protection, we will have to propose a system where users can
see and change their data. The directive becomes active May, 25 2018.

This is not only true for OSGeo, but for every organisation working with
people in Europe. Maybe an idea to set up a shared initiative.
I have cross-posted this topic to the eur...@lists.org because I think
there will be more 'specialists' about GDPR in that list...

Maybe this is the next project we should launch after the website is
succesfully rebranded.

Dirk

[1] http://www.eugdpr.org/

On 18-10-17 11:55, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
> Dear Harish,
> 
> Unfortunately, no, there is no such place. We cannot publicly publish
> the contact details for privacy reasons and we don't have yet a secured
> system for that. However, it's a good point and we should start a
> discussion on the mailing list on this topic. I took the liberty to CC
> the discuss list. For sure, such a system will make CRO's life much more
> simple.
> 
> Best,
> Vasile
> CRO 2017
> 
> 
> On 10/18/17 12:36 PM, Harish wrote:
>> Dear CRO,
>> Is there a place/link/way available where a charter member can see his
>> contact details in centralized database and correct/edit it?
>> Kind Regards,
>> H K Solanki, India
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Vasile Craciunescu
>> > wrote:
>>
>>     Dear charter members,
>>
>>     It's time to vote for our new members of the board of directors.
>>     Like in the previous years, an electronic voting system was setup.
>>     In minutes from now, emails with personal voting links will be sent
>>     to all our charter members. If you don't receive your voting link in
>>     the next couple of hours please let me know at c...@osgeo.org
>>     . Before doing that please also check your
>>     "Spam" folder. Sending hundreds of messages at once is not easy and
>>     it can be interpreted as spam by some of the filtering systems.
>>     Also, sometimes the e-mail addresses change but the charter member
>>     contact database is not up to date. I will try to contact all the
>>     members with bounced invitations via alternative
>>     email/twitter/linkedin/etc to update the email account and to make
>>     sure that are able to vote.
>>
>>     Thank you for supporting OSGeo!
>>
>>     Best,
>>     Vasile
>>     CRO 2017
>>     ___
>>     Discuss mailing list
>>     Discuss@lists.osgeo.org 
>>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>     
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> H K Solanki,
>> Senior Assistant Professor, CGARD, NIRD
>> Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500030
>> hksolanki.n...@gov.in 
>> 9214446732
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Yours sincerely,


ir. Dirk Frigne
CEO @geosparc

Geosparc n.v.
Brugsesteenweg 587
B-9030 Ghent
Tel: +32 9 236 60 18
GSM: +32 495 508 799

http://www.geomajas.org
http://www.geosparc.com

@DFrigne
be.linkedin.com/in/frigne

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] Please support Presidents of Universities United against Hunger (PUSH)

[Suchith Anand]

Dear colleagues,

It was World Food Day [1] earlier this week  . It is very worring that Hunger 
levels are increasing globally. We need to promote worldwide awareness and 
action for those who suffer from hunger and the need to ensure food security 
and nutritious diets for all.

On behalf of Presidents of Universities United against Hunger (PUSH), I take 
the liberty to share with you the global pledge PUSH is  launching, attempting 
to gather as many universities worldwide as possible, in this common pledge 
against world hunger. PUSH is an initiative which unites universities in the 
fight against hunger and malnutrition. Nearly 800 million people struggle with 
debilitating hunger and malnutrition in every corner of the globe. That’s one 
in every nine people, with the majority being women and children. Leadership 
from the top will expedite progress in addressing this critical local and 
global issue. Presidents/Chancellors have signed the PUSH Commitment, 
establishing a framework for collaboration and a blueprint for action to 
achieve food and nutrition security. Details at http://wp.auburn.edu/push

As you will see in the attached pledge document [2], there is no financial or 
other obligation from those who support the pledge, other than their commitment 
and the one of the university they represent, to state their commitment to be 
part of this global movement against hunger.

We would be most grateful if you could share this pledge with your contacts in 
universities to seek his/her signature to the attached pledge.  In turn, the 
signed copy could be scanned and sent back either to me or to the address 
appearing on it. Looking forward to your prompt response and strong support for 
our common pledge against world hunger.

Best wishes,

Suchith


[1] http://www.fao.org/world-food-day/2017/theme/en/
[2] 
http://opensourcegeospatial.icaci.org/2017/10/please-support-presidents-of-universities-united-against-hunger-push/




This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. 

Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
permitted by UK legislation.

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Costly FOSS4Gs

[Andrea Aime]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Bruce Bannerman <
bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When you look at the costs associated with a person attending a typical
> international FOSS4G event, the actual conference fees a small amount of
> the actual cost.
>
> Consider airfares, transportation, accomodation, meals, lost wages etc.
> There is nothing that an LOC can do about these individual costs.
>

Ah hem, nothing that the LOC can do once the conference site is chosen, but
something that OSGeo can do when assigning the location and timing.
And I believe that is happening, if I'm not wrong for the first time the
LOC needs to provide expected cost of airfare and accommodation as part
of their proposal, which will make people consider carefully that aspect
too.

Another aspect that was not cited but that I heard in conversations and
believe is important, it's that it is really hard to compress
the cost of a large conference: the LOC needs a place that can host 1000
people, and that can give internet to this many people,
that places forces the catering package on you (I've been told by several
conference chairs there no way to dodge that) and the
two together make up for a large amount of the cost.

So, besides some exceptions (think FOSDEM) it seems the only way to setup a
cheaper conference is to make a smaller
one that can be hosted at a university or in a smaller conference center.
Hence the focus on the local conferences.
I believe the threshold is at around 500 people, larger than that one is
hung on the costly options.

Cheers
Andrea

==

GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V
for more information.
==

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054  Massarosa (LU)
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39  339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003

Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o
nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il
loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio,
per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo
messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di
darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio
stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso,
divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od
utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai
principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.

The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for
the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or
proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act
(Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection
Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction,
copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is
strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the
information in this message that has been received in error. The sender
does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or
completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility  for changes
made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of
e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Costly FOSS4Gs

[Sanghee Shin]

Hello Ravi, 

Here are my answers to your questions. 

1. To run international FOSS4G we need much money as described by many
2. We have only 2 revenue sources from international FOSS4G to meet the running 
cost, one is from registration, the other is from sponsors. 
3. Now we want to have more affordable registration fee. And then we need to 
increase sponsorships. 
4. Many sponsors are commercial companies, sometimes from government bodies. 
5. To increase sponsorships from companies, I believe we need to make 
international FOSS4G more business friendly to ensure our sponsors that they 
are getting benefits from their sponsoring/investments. 

I can share interesting story here in Korea. Korean R user group will have 
their annual conference( https://onoffmix.com/event/115611 ) 10 days later. 
Actually there was some registration fee for the conference. However it’s now 
free for online pre-registration because of large sponsorship from Microsoft 
Korea. Yes, from MS!

Kind regards, 
신상희
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
www.gaia3d.com 

보낸 사람: Ravi Kumar
보낸 날짜: 2017년 10월 18일 수요일 오후 2:57
받는 사람: discuss
제목: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Costly FOSS4Gs

GFOSS.. Commercial Support.. +1 for this.
But.. now that this has come to a boil..
WHY NOT THE BOARD AND WOULD BE BOARD COME OUT CLEAR ON THIS..
SURE THIS WILL HELP THE CHARTER.. WHOM TO VOTE..
'Free and Open Source'.. has brought to where we are.. This is a community 
effort.
Is there a solution to OSGeo FOSS4G events, that are affordable to 
Users/Developers/Students..
Ravi Kumar



On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Tom Chadwin  wrote:
Hello all

A significant group who have possibly not yet chimed in on this issue are the 
commercial organizations who sell GFOSS support and development. I presume that 
FOSS4G is one of their best opportunities to get new business.

I know there have been recent discussions/disagreements on this list about how 
far OSGeo should promote commercial organizations. However, these companies are 
the crucial element in GFOSS adoption in many larger public- and private-sector 
bodies. Many simply will not entertain GFOSS without commercial support, many 
believe the old myth that open source means no support, and many simply will 
not accept the risk of GFOSS without that support.

My point is that GFOSS would not have anything like the market penetration it 
now does without commercial companies offering open-source support and 
development. As I say, I stand to be corrected, but FOSS4G surely enables them 
to persuade others to migrate to GFOSS, which is to the whole community's 
benefit.

Thanks

Tom

PS  Please forgive enormous corporate sigfile...


Tom Chadwin, ICT Manager
Telephone: 01434 611530 Mob:
Web: 
www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk

IMPORTANT NOTICE - Disclaimer - This communication is from Northumberland 
National Park Authority (NNPA).The Authority’s head office and principal place 
of business is Eastburn, South Park, Hexham, Northumberland, NE46 1BS, United 
Kingdom. If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of 
disclosure, distribution, copying or use of this communication or the 
information in it or in any attachments is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the 
email and destroy any copies of it. Any views or opinions presented are solely 
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of NNPA.Contractors 
or potential contractors are reminded that a formal Order or Contract is needed 
for NNPA to be bound by any offer or acceptance of terms for the supply of 
goods or services Although this email and any attachments are believed to be 
free of any virus or other defects which might affect any computer or IT system 
into which they are received, no responsibility is accepted by the NNPA for any 
loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use thereof. Computer 
systems of this Authority may be monitored and communications carried out on 
them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other 
lawful purpose.
___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Costly FOSS4Gs

[Bruce Bannerman]

Hello Ravi,

I have not really been following this discussion closely, but I can see from 
this email that you are upset.

I’m not sure what it is that you are upset over based on the few lines in your 
email.

I suspect that the issue may be:

"Is there a solution to OSGeo FOSS4G events, that are affordable to 
Users/Developers/Students..”

If my assumption is not correct, then I apologise for the comments below.
 

From my perspective:

Having been a member of a FOSS4G LOC (2009), I know how much effort is required 
to run a successful conference.

In our planning, we kept as a primary driver that we would need to minimise 
costs, but still deliver a professional conference.

This is not an easy thing to do. On the whole, I think that FOSS4G LOC 
typically strike a good balance.


When you look at the costs associated with a person attending a typical 
international FOSS4G event, the actual conference fees a small amount of the 
actual cost.

Consider airfares, transportation, accomodation, meals, lost wages etc. There 
is nothing that an LOC can do about these individual costs.



Affordability is an subjective term and will be viewed differently for each 
person, depending on their income, funds available and the value that they 
place on the event.

There are many events that I’d love to go to, but cannot afford to attend. This 
includes many FOSS4G events unfortunately.


I have noted a trend over many years to try and make videos of FOSS4G sessions 
available online for community members who were not able to attend an event to 
get an idea of what was presented.

Perhaps this will have to suffice for people who decide that in their 
circumstances, they cannot afford to attend a FOSS4G event?


Kind regards,

Bruce






> On 18 Oct 2017, at 4:57 pm, Ravi Kumar  wrote:
> 
> GFOSS.. Commercial Support.. +1 for this.
> But.. now that this has come to a boil..
> 
> WHY NOT THE BOARD AND WOULD BE BOARD COME OUT CLEAR ON THIS..
> SURE THIS WILL HELP THE CHARTER.. WHOM TO VOTE..
> 'Free and Open Source'.. has brought to where we are.. This is a community 
> effort.
> 
> Is there a solution to OSGeo FOSS4G events, that are affordable to 
> Users/Developers/Students..
> 
> Ravi Kumar
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Tom Chadwin  wrote:
> Hello all
> 
> A significant group who have possibly not yet chimed in on this issue are the 
> commercial organizations who sell GFOSS support and development. I presume 
> that FOSS4G is one of their best opportunities to get new business.
> 
> I know there have been recent discussions/disagreements on this list about 
> how far OSGeo should promote commercial organizations. However, these 
> companies are the crucial element in GFOSS adoption in many larger public- 
> and private-sector bodies. Many simply will not entertain GFOSS without 
> commercial support, many believe the old myth that open source means no 
> support, and many simply will not accept the risk of GFOSS without that 
> support.
> 
> My point is that GFOSS would not have anything like the market penetration it 
> now does without commercial companies offering open-source support and 
> development. As I say, I stand to be corrected, but FOSS4G surely enables 
> them to persuade others to migrate to GFOSS, which is to the whole 
> community's benefit.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Tom
> 
> PS  Please forgive enormous corporate sigfile...
> 
> 
> Tom Chadwin, ICT Manager
> Telephone: 01434 611530 Mob:
> Web: 
> www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk
> 
> IMPORTANT NOTICE - Disclaimer - This communication is from Northumberland 
> National Park Authority (NNPA).The Authority’s head office and principal 
> place of business is Eastburn, South Park, Hexham, Northumberland, NE46 1BS, 
> United Kingdom. If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any 
> form of disclosure, distribution, copying or use of this communication or the 
> information in it or in any attachments is strictly prohibited and may be 
> unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the 
> email and destroy any copies of it. Any views or opinions presented are 
> solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of 
> NNPA.Contractors or potential contractors are reminded that a formal Order or 
> Contract is needed for NNPA to be bound by any offer or acceptance of terms 
> for the supply of goods or services Although this email and any attachments 
> are believed to be free of any virus or other defects which might affect any 
> computer or IT system into which they are received, no responsibility is 
> accepted by the NNPA for any loss or damage arising in any way from the 
> receipt or use thereof. Computer systems of this Authority may be monitored 
> and communications carried out on them recorded, to secure the effective 
> operation of the system and for other lawful purpose.

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Costly FOSS4Gs

[María Arias de Reyna]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Ravi Kumar 
wrote:
> GFOSS.. Commercial Support.. +1 for this.
> But.. now that this has come to a boil..
>
> WHY NOT THE BOARD AND WOULD BE BOARD COME OUT CLEAR ON THIS..
> SURE THIS WILL HELP THE CHARTER.. WHOM TO VOTE..
> 'Free and Open Source'.. has brought to where we are.. This is a community
> effort.
>
> Is there a solution to OSGeo FOSS4G events, that are affordable to
> Users/Developers/Students..
>
> Ravi Kumar
>

Hi Ravi,

I think we have mentioned several ideas to fix this.* The Travel Grant *program
may not be very big right now, but it is growing year by year. Also, yes,
we are workinig on making the cost lower for attendants, have you checked
the current call for venues[1]? Have you checked the current *early bird
prices* for next FOSS4G[2]? Remember that some of them have a room already
included!

Maybe the problem is that you think this event should be free for
attendants? What is the price you would think it is reasonable for
attending FOSS4G? (This is a tricky question: whatever the price you say,
there will be people who will claim it is too high... unless it is free.
And then they will say travel costs are too high... you will never make
everyone happy unless it is a free event on their doorstep.).

And also remember what many of us had said: there are very good local and
regional events who have no reason to envy FOSS4G. As they are smaller, it
is easier to keep them cheaper.

There is another issue: we can lower insanely the price of the FOSS4G
ticket, but travel costs are still there. If you cannot afford to travel,
maybe you should look into your closest FOSS4G local event. Is there none?
Then look for your fellow osgeo members living near you and start one! How
do you think all this events started? A small group of people who wanted to
meet without having to travel much or wanting to talk about regional
specifics. That's it, there's no other secret.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2019_Bid_Process
[2] https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/foss4g-2018-dar-es-salaam-tic
kets-36995828519#results
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss