Hi Cameron,
I agree that we are discussing details, so no objection to the wording.
On 07/05/2014 12:26 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Hi Angelos,
I think your suggestion and mine are very close and we are now
"splitting hairs" about details. We could use an absolute minimum
number of votes, may
Hi Angelos,
I think your suggestion and mine are very close and we are now
"splitting hairs" about details. We could use an absolute minimum number
of votes, maybe 10 as you suggest, but I prefer "5% of charter members
who voted" which I think is more robust long term.
Unless you (and others)
t;bo...@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org>"
mailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org>>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo
charter members [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Hi Bruce,
I agree that a nominating member should explain why a candidate is worth voting
<mailto:cameron.shor...@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 1 July 2014 8:40 pm
Cc: Discuss OSGeo <mailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org>>, "bo...@lists.osgeo.org
<mailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org>" <mailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org>>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed p
;
Date: Tuesday, 1 July 2014 8:40 pm
Cc: Discuss OSGeo mailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org>>,
"bo...@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org>"
mailto:bo...@lists.osgeo.org>>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo
charter members
Thanks a
Hi Cameron,
On 07/01/2014 11:02 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
On 1/07/2014 10:32 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
On 07/01/2014 01:40 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
---
Some specific answers below:
On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each cand
On 1/07/2014 10:32 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
On 07/01/2014 01:40 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
---
Some specific answers below:
On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate
before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter M
Hi Cameron,
On 07/01/2014 01:40 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
---
Some specific answers below:
On 30/06/2014 9:33 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
Perhaps we should ask for a minimum of Yes votes on each candidate
before acceptance. A fixed percentage of the Charter Members maybe?
Good suggestion. Ad
Thanks all for your comments. I've updated based on your feedback to:
/1a. Charter member to nominate potential new charter member(s) (as
before).//
//
//1b. A person who meets the "Positive Attributes for Charter Members"
[1]//, may ask an charter member who can vouch for the person to
nomin
Apologies, typo on my part, should have read:
> Perhaps it could CONTINUE TO be a requirement for board membership that
> candidates have already been voted as charter members by the wider membership
__
Steven
On 30 Jun 2014, at 12:04, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
> Board members need to b
Board members need to be charter members already:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Election_Procedure
Best regards,
Bart
On 30 Jun 2014, at 12:34, Steven Feldman wrote:
> If we want to avoid "establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy” then perhaps
> we need to consider ways of becoming a mass
If we want to avoid "establishing a self-sustaining oligarchy” then perhaps we
need to consider ways of becoming a mass membership organisation rather than
one governed by a self selecting elite group.
Should we consider separating the Charter Members who could continue to be
acknowledged for t
Selon Bart van den Eijnden :
> Hey Peter,
>
> so what would be your suggestions to make the process more of the 4 bullet
> points you mentioned?
Not answering on behalf of Peter, but a potential idea to solve those issues
would be to combine Cameron proposal of a yes/no vote on each nominee + all
Hi,
a refreshing way to select charter members, in deed.
Hope charter members spend some time to, 'read and vote'.
May be a wake-up-call.
Ravi Kumar
On Monday, June 30, 2014 5:31 AM, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
On 06/30/2014 12:07 AM, Daniel Kastl wrote:
>>
>> 2. Charter members then vote (in/ou
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
> On 06/30/2014 12:07 AM, Daniel Kastl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Charter members then vote (in/out) nominated charter members. This
>>> will
>>> be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of
>>> members for a larger sel
On 06/30/2014 12:07 AM, Daniel Kastl wrote:
2. Charter members then vote (in/out) nominated charter members. This will
be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of
members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of
30). For this year, I propose
>
>
> 2. Charter members then vote (in/out) nominated charter members. This will
> be different to prior years, as we previously voted in a fixed number of
> members for a larger selection pool. (eg vote in 20 people from a list of
> 30). For this year, I propose we have a "Yes/No" vote. Ie, if we
17 matches
Mail list logo
