m.
> Cheers
> Ravi Kumar
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Frank Warmerdam <warmer...@pobox.com>
> Date: Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 3:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] "Hostile Takeover" -- what do we mean by this?
> To: Helmut Kudrnovsky <
Gotcha, that is indeed a trouble, the cro role is tough.
I love this positive conversation - wish we were doing it the week before
elections to alleviate concern.
This is one of those things were a link (or the full text) may be required
for future emails.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:59 AM Sara
> I encourage everyone to look at the larger page, some of this is covered
under guidence for candidate selection.
This is good, but as a reminder: the reason I brought this up to
discuss-list originally was to give voice to concerns of new nominees --
who do not necessarily see our "guidance for
I do not think we need to get the wording perfect, we have have multiple
bullet points to cover this requirement.
I encourage everyone to look at the larger page, some of this is covered
under guidence for candidate selection.
--
Jody Garnett
On 30 August 2017 at 08:54, Kevin Smith
Hi,
If I may still chime in, I don't think this keeps the meaning of what was
originally intended, I would add diversity to integrity. In an extreme
example, if you consider the risk of green aliens taking over osgeo, those
aliens may have integrity and still if they are too many, they would
I think that Sara’s suggestion for change in language is good and we should
definitely consider it, but if you would like to learn more about this issue
this article explains this specifically for nonprofits
http://charitylawyerblog.com/2010/10/25/nonprofit-coup-detat/
Hi Sara,
without having a deep knowledge of decision took at higher levels,
IMHO OS and particularly OSGEO worlds were already faced this kind of
"hostile takeover". Not necessarly as "takeover" but trying to do some
product protocols as OGC standards (think to lidar formats, map
servers
Rather than stating what OSGeo is trying to avoid (a negative
statement), it might be better to frame the responsibilities of charter
members in terms of furthering the purpose of OSGeo (a positive statement):
"The purpose of OSGeo is to establish and support a diverse open source
community
Coming back to this discussion; thank you all who chimed in with more
information.
With the words of wisdom from Frank, Jody, and others -- is it fair to say
that Charter Members have the responsibility of voting, as well as
"preserving the integrity of the OSGeo Foundation"? That seems a less,
ss@lists.osgeo.org>, s...@sarasafavi.com
Betreff: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] "Hostile Takeover" -- what do we mean by this?
Helmut,
The word "hostile" is a bit unfortunate. One of the goals of charter
membership early in the organization was to provide a mechanism to
keep us aligned on rough
Helmut,
The word "hostile" is a bit unfortunate. One of the goals of charter
membership early in the organization was to provide a mechanism to
keep us aligned on roughly our original mission and community. I
personally had a concern that we might get swamped by some other
community and almost
sorry, missed the subject
Gesendet: Montag, 28. August 2017 um 20:12 Uhr
Von: "Helmut Kudrnovsky"
An: discuss@lists.osgeo.org, s...@sarasafavi.com
Betreff: Kein Betreff
Sara Safavi:
>In the notification emails from CRO to new charter member nominees, the
>following is included (emphasis mine):
Sara based on the discussion do you have a recommendation for rewording? As
a temporary measure I have added a link to the wikipedia page provided.
The other change made for 2017 was to clarify the diversity section (so it
was not just about diversity of programming language and interests) -
This was something that was explained to me in f2f meeting in 2016.
Apparently other non-profits have had a situation where new members from a
specific community or point of view are voted in due to lax requirements
and come to dominate the board selection process. The wording "hostile" is
a bit
On 08/28/2017 09:41 AM, Sara Safavi wrote:
> Hi discuss,
>
> In the notification emails from CRO to new charter member nominees, the
> following is included (emphasis mine):
>
> *"(Charter Members) have the following responsibilities: (1) annually vote
> for OSGeo Board Members; (2) annually
Hi discuss,
In the notification emails from CRO to new charter member nominees, the
following is included (emphasis mine):
*"(Charter Members) have the following responsibilities: (1) annually vote
for OSGeo Board Members; (2) annually vote for new OSGeo Charter Members
and (3) be aware of and
16 matches
Mail list logo
