Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

Hamish Campbell
Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,

Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.

You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.

The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.

Thank you for your contribution!

On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

John Bryant
Thanks Hamish :)

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,

Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.

You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.

The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.

Thank you for your contribution!

On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

John Bryant
In reply to this post by Hamish Campbell
Hi all,

Great work, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the election process. I've added a couple of comments to the Google doc, but I have a specific concern that may need a little more room for discussion.

In the proposed process, there is a section called "Minimum term of membership", which says:
To be nominated as a Director, you must have been a Member for a minimum of 12 months (calculated from closing date of elections). This ensures that potential Directors have had the opportunity to participate in OSGeo Oceania business, and gives the Board an opportunity to mentor those who would like to take up leadership positions in the future.

I think there are a couple of issues with this:

1) It's not an effective way to assess someone's capability to act as a director.

For example, I want to nominate Edwin Liava'a to stand in the next election. Edwin was a keynote speaker at last year's conference in Wellington, and has been a highly engaged leader in the Pacific open geospatial community for many years. He's volunteered on a number of committees that would count as OSGeo Oceania business. He's done plenty to prove his dedication to this community, would be an asset to the organisation, and would be an effective voice from the Pacific, which to date has been missing from the board.

But (as far as I can tell) Edwin's not currently a formal member, so by this clause he wouldn't be qualified to serve as a director, even if he became a member now.

My point is, there are likely many people in our community who would be excellent additions to the board, and the length of their membership doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of their potential for contribution. If someone has a valuable contribution to make, why would we want to put this up as an obstacle?

2) It may not be within the board's scope to decide who is qualified to serve as a future director.

Required qualifications to serve as a director are already defined in the constitution (section 74: simply, "Each Director must be a Member").

Members' rights to nominate are also defined there, subject to this qualification (section 79.3: "Any Member may nominate a person who is eligible for appointment under clause 74 to serve as a Director.").

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use the election process to create additional eligibility hurdles, it seems this might be impacting on members' rights.

If a nomination were declared ineligible based on this section in the election process, could a constitutional challenge be made? If the election process were found to be in conflict with the constitution, could this potentially render the election invalid? Obviously it's a hypothetical, unlikely scenario, but maybe not impossible.

My feeling is the election process would be better without this section. If there are new director eligibility requirements to add, it seems a lot safer to stick to using constitution amendments, which would require formal assent by the membership through a statutory process.

Cheers
John


On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,

Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.

You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.

The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.

Thank you for your contribution!

On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

adam steer-2
Hey John, all

That clause was aimed at preventing people whos only interest is to get on boards getting on the board, and has been a topic of debate. Based on your input about the constitution its probably a good idea to just replace it with ’nominees shall be nominated in accordance with clause 74 and 19.3 of the constitution [link])

It is worth remembering we all just kinda nominated ourselves at the start.

Cheers

Adam



On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 05:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

Great work, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the election process. I've added a couple of comments to the Google doc, but I have a specific concern that may need a little more room for discussion.

In the proposed process, there is a section called "Minimum term of membership", which says:
To be nominated as a Director, you must have been a Member for a minimum of 12 months (calculated from closing date of elections). This ensures that potential Directors have had the opportunity to participate in OSGeo Oceania business, and gives the Board an opportunity to mentor those who would like to take up leadership positions in the future.

I think there are a couple of issues with this:

1) It's not an effective way to assess someone's capability to act as a director.

For example, I want to nominate Edwin Liava'a to stand in the next election. Edwin was a keynote speaker at last year's conference in Wellington, and has been a highly engaged leader in the Pacific open geospatial community for many years. He's volunteered on a number of committees that would count as OSGeo Oceania business. He's done plenty to prove his dedication to this community, would be an asset to the organisation, and would be an effective voice from the Pacific, which to date has been missing from the board.

But (as far as I can tell) Edwin's not currently a formal member, so by this clause he wouldn't be qualified to serve as a director, even if he became a member now.

My point is, there are likely many people in our community who would be excellent additions to the board, and the length of their membership doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of their potential for contribution. If someone has a valuable contribution to make, why would we want to put this up as an obstacle?

2) It may not be within the board's scope to decide who is qualified to serve as a future director.

Required qualifications to serve as a director are already defined in the constitution (section 74: simply, "Each Director must be a Member").

Members' rights to nominate are also defined there, subject to this qualification (section 79.3: "Any Member may nominate a person who is eligible for appointment under clause 74 to serve as a Director.").

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use the election process to create additional eligibility hurdles, it seems this might be impacting on members' rights.

If a nomination were declared ineligible based on this section in the election process, could a constitutional challenge be made? If the election process were found to be in conflict with the constitution, could this potentially render the election invalid? Obviously it's a hypothetical, unlikely scenario, but maybe not impossible.

My feeling is the election process would be better without this section. If there are new director eligibility requirements to add, it seems a lot safer to stick to using constitution amendments, which would require formal assent by the membership through a statutory process.

Cheers
John


On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,

Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.

You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.

The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.

Thank you for your contribution!

On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

John Bryant
Yes! We want the board to be made up of engaged and motivated people with the community's best interests at heart. Our community is full of people like this! I reckon our best bet is to articulate that vision, create the conditions for those people to step forward and participate, and make sure the members who elect the board have enough visibility into it all to make informed decisions.

Cheers
John

On Sun, 13 Sep 2020, 3:48 pm Adam Steer, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hey John, all

That clause was aimed at preventing people whos only interest is to get on boards getting on the board, and has been a topic of debate. Based on your input about the constitution its probably a good idea to just replace it with ’nominees shall be nominated in accordance with clause 74 and 19.3 of the constitution [link])

It is worth remembering we all just kinda nominated ourselves at the start.

Cheers

Adam



On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 05:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

Great work, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the election process. I've added a couple of comments to the Google doc, but I have a specific concern that may need a little more room for discussion.

In the proposed process, there is a section called "Minimum term of membership", which says:
To be nominated as a Director, you must have been a Member for a minimum of 12 months (calculated from closing date of elections). This ensures that potential Directors have had the opportunity to participate in OSGeo Oceania business, and gives the Board an opportunity to mentor those who would like to take up leadership positions in the future.

I think there are a couple of issues with this:

1) It's not an effective way to assess someone's capability to act as a director.

For example, I want to nominate Edwin Liava'a to stand in the next election. Edwin was a keynote speaker at last year's conference in Wellington, and has been a highly engaged leader in the Pacific open geospatial community for many years. He's volunteered on a number of committees that would count as OSGeo Oceania business. He's done plenty to prove his dedication to this community, would be an asset to the organisation, and would be an effective voice from the Pacific, which to date has been missing from the board.

But (as far as I can tell) Edwin's not currently a formal member, so by this clause he wouldn't be qualified to serve as a director, even if he became a member now.

My point is, there are likely many people in our community who would be excellent additions to the board, and the length of their membership doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of their potential for contribution. If someone has a valuable contribution to make, why would we want to put this up as an obstacle?

2) It may not be within the board's scope to decide who is qualified to serve as a future director.

Required qualifications to serve as a director are already defined in the constitution (section 74: simply, "Each Director must be a Member").

Members' rights to nominate are also defined there, subject to this qualification (section 79.3: "Any Member may nominate a person who is eligible for appointment under clause 74 to serve as a Director.").

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use the election process to create additional eligibility hurdles, it seems this might be impacting on members' rights.

If a nomination were declared ineligible based on this section in the election process, could a constitutional challenge be made? If the election process were found to be in conflict with the constitution, could this potentially render the election invalid? Obviously it's a hypothetical, unlikely scenario, but maybe not impossible.

My feeling is the election process would be better without this section. If there are new director eligibility requirements to add, it seems a lot safer to stick to using constitution amendments, which would require formal assent by the membership through a statutory process.

Cheers
John


On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,

Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.

You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.

The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.

Thank you for your contribution!

On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

Martin Tomko

Hi John, Adam, all

I agree with your second point, John, that this should be covered by the constitution. I awas myself uneasy with the decision that the board decides this.

 

I am not in agreement with the first point. I believe that we are now past the ”storming and forming” stage of the organisation, and our initial days.

I believe that to stand as a director, members need to demonstrate that a member has been active for a period of time, in good faith. The issues OSM had in the last year are a testament. The organisation is now managing substantial funds, and carries responsibility.

 

This could be addressed in a number of ways, in my eyes:

 

  • A candidate could have the backing of a number of members that have been members for at least 12 months ( I suggest 3), if the candidate themself were not a member for that period;
  • A backing of a SIG could be equivalent.

Anyway, I do not see a problem for people to wait for 12 month before being  nominated for a director.

 

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, 13 September 2020 at 10:38 pm
To: Adam Steer <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

 

Yes! We want the board to be made up of engaged and motivated people with the community's best interests at heart. Our community is full of people like this! I reckon our best bet is to articulate that vision, create the conditions for those people to step forward and participate, and make sure the members who elect the board have enough visibility into it all to make informed decisions.

 

Cheers

John

 

On Sun, 13 Sep 2020, 3:48 pm Adam Steer, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey John, all

 

That clause was aimed at preventing people whos only interest is to get on boards getting on the board, and has been a topic of debate. Based on your input about the constitution its probably a good idea to just replace it with ’nominees shall be nominated in accordance with clause 74 and 19.3 of the constitution [link])

 

It is worth remembering we all just kinda nominated ourselves at the start.

 

Cheers

 

Adam

 

 

 

On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 05:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

 

Great work, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the election process. I've added a couple of comments to the Google doc, but I have a specific concern that may need a little more room for discussion.

 

In the proposed process, there is a section called "Minimum term of membership", which says:

To be nominated as a Director, you must have been a Member for a minimum of 12 months (calculated from closing date of elections). This ensures that potential Directors have had the opportunity to participate in OSGeo Oceania business, and gives the Board an opportunity to mentor those who would like to take up leadership positions in the future.

 

I think there are a couple of issues with this:

 

1) It's not an effective way to assess someone's capability to act as a director.

 

For example, I want to nominate Edwin Liava'a to stand in the next election. Edwin was a keynote speaker at last year's conference in Wellington, and has been a highly engaged leader in the Pacific open geospatial community for many years. He's volunteered on a number of committees that would count as OSGeo Oceania business. He's done plenty to prove his dedication to this community, would be an asset to the organisation, and would be an effective voice from the Pacific, which to date has been missing from the board.

 

But (as far as I can tell) Edwin's not currently a formal member, so by this clause he wouldn't be qualified to serve as a director, even if he became a member now.

 

My point is, there are likely many people in our community who would be excellent additions to the board, and the length of their membership doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of their potential for contribution. If someone has a valuable contribution to make, why would we want to put this up as an obstacle?

 

2) It may not be within the board's scope to decide who is qualified to serve as a future director.

 

Required qualifications to serve as a director are already defined in the constitution (section 74: simply, "Each Director must be a Member").

 

Members' rights to nominate are also defined there, subject to this qualification (section 79.3: "Any Member may nominate a person who is eligible for appointment under clause 74 to serve as a Director.").

 

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use the election process to create additional eligibility hurdles, it seems this might be impacting on members' rights.

 

If a nomination were declared ineligible based on this section in the election process, could a constitutional challenge be made? If the election process were found to be in conflict with the constitution, could this potentially render the election invalid? Obviously it's a hypothetical, unlikely scenario, but maybe not impossible.

 

My feeling is the election process would be better without this section. If there are new director eligibility requirements to add, it seems a lot safer to stick to using constitution amendments, which would require formal assent by the membership through a statutory process.

 

Cheers

John

 

 

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,

 

Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.

 

You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.

 

The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.

 

Thank you for your contribution!

 

On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania


_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

Alex Leith
Hey John

I'm not sure about the 12 month qualifying period either, but I do think that having 'skin in the game' as Adam has said many times is important. If someone wants to be on the Board, the smallest hurdle is being a member and having the foresight to be a member, and presumably involved, for at least 12 months is not really a big deal.

That said though, you are right that we cannot override the constitution in our election process... So while we may 'define a process' in clause 79.1, I don't think we can further constrain eligibility, as per clause 74.

So I think we need to remove this qualifier from the election process and refer to the constitution.

Kind regards,

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:46, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi John, Adam, all

I agree with your second point, John, that this should be covered by the constitution. I awas myself uneasy with the decision that the board decides this.

 

I am not in agreement with the first point. I believe that we are now past the ”storming and forming” stage of the organisation, and our initial days.

I believe that to stand as a director, members need to demonstrate that a member has been active for a period of time, in good faith. The issues OSM had in the last year are a testament. The organisation is now managing substantial funds, and carries responsibility.

 

This could be addressed in a number of ways, in my eyes:

 

  • A candidate could have the backing of a number of members that have been members for at least 12 months ( I suggest 3), if the candidate themself were not a member for that period;
  • A backing of a SIG could be equivalent.

Anyway, I do not see a problem for people to wait for 12 month before being  nominated for a director.

 

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, 13 September 2020 at 10:38 pm
To: Adam Steer <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

 

Yes! We want the board to be made up of engaged and motivated people with the community's best interests at heart. Our community is full of people like this! I reckon our best bet is to articulate that vision, create the conditions for those people to step forward and participate, and make sure the members who elect the board have enough visibility into it all to make informed decisions.

 

Cheers

John

 

On Sun, 13 Sep 2020, 3:48 pm Adam Steer, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey John, all

 

That clause was aimed at preventing people whos only interest is to get on boards getting on the board, and has been a topic of debate. Based on your input about the constitution its probably a good idea to just replace it with ’nominees shall be nominated in accordance with clause 74 and 19.3 of the constitution [link])

 

It is worth remembering we all just kinda nominated ourselves at the start.

 

Cheers

 

Adam

 

 

 

On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 05:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

 

Great work, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the election process. I've added a couple of comments to the Google doc, but I have a specific concern that may need a little more room for discussion.

 

In the proposed process, there is a section called "Minimum term of membership", which says:

To be nominated as a Director, you must have been a Member for a minimum of 12 months (calculated from closing date of elections). This ensures that potential Directors have had the opportunity to participate in OSGeo Oceania business, and gives the Board an opportunity to mentor those who would like to take up leadership positions in the future.

 

I think there are a couple of issues with this:

 

1) It's not an effective way to assess someone's capability to act as a director.

 

For example, I want to nominate Edwin Liava'a to stand in the next election. Edwin was a keynote speaker at last year's conference in Wellington, and has been a highly engaged leader in the Pacific open geospatial community for many years. He's volunteered on a number of committees that would count as OSGeo Oceania business. He's done plenty to prove his dedication to this community, would be an asset to the organisation, and would be an effective voice from the Pacific, which to date has been missing from the board.

 

But (as far as I can tell) Edwin's not currently a formal member, so by this clause he wouldn't be qualified to serve as a director, even if he became a member now.

 

My point is, there are likely many people in our community who would be excellent additions to the board, and the length of their membership doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of their potential for contribution. If someone has a valuable contribution to make, why would we want to put this up as an obstacle?

 

2) It may not be within the board's scope to decide who is qualified to serve as a future director.

 

Required qualifications to serve as a director are already defined in the constitution (section 74: simply, "Each Director must be a Member").

 

Members' rights to nominate are also defined there, subject to this qualification (section 79.3: "Any Member may nominate a person who is eligible for appointment under clause 74 to serve as a Director.").

 

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use the election process to create additional eligibility hurdles, it seems this might be impacting on members' rights.

 

If a nomination were declared ineligible based on this section in the election process, could a constitutional challenge be made? If the election process were found to be in conflict with the constitution, could this potentially render the election invalid? Obviously it's a hypothetical, unlikely scenario, but maybe not impossible.

 

My feeling is the election process would be better without this section. If there are new director eligibility requirements to add, it seems a lot safer to stick to using constitution amendments, which would require formal assent by the membership through a statutory process.

 

Cheers

John

 

 

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,

 

Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.

 

You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.

 

The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.

 

Thank you for your contribution!

 

On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania


--
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

John Bryant
Thanks, I agree that directors should have "skin in the game" as well, but a simple 12 month membership requirement would probably disqualify some people who'd be great. Martin's suggested modifications could perhaps help address this. But I still think it would need to be addressed in the constitution, and not by board-level decision.

Cheers
John



On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:59, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hey John

I'm not sure about the 12 month qualifying period either, but I do think that having 'skin in the game' as Adam has said many times is important. If someone wants to be on the Board, the smallest hurdle is being a member and having the foresight to be a member, and presumably involved, for at least 12 months is not really a big deal.

That said though, you are right that we cannot override the constitution in our election process... So while we may 'define a process' in clause 79.1, I don't think we can further constrain eligibility, as per clause 74.

So I think we need to remove this qualifier from the election process and refer to the constitution.

Kind regards,

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:46, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi John, Adam, all

I agree with your second point, John, that this should be covered by the constitution. I awas myself uneasy with the decision that the board decides this.

 

I am not in agreement with the first point. I believe that we are now past the ”storming and forming” stage of the organisation, and our initial days.

I believe that to stand as a director, members need to demonstrate that a member has been active for a period of time, in good faith. The issues OSM had in the last year are a testament. The organisation is now managing substantial funds, and carries responsibility.

 

This could be addressed in a number of ways, in my eyes:

 

  • A candidate could have the backing of a number of members that have been members for at least 12 months ( I suggest 3), if the candidate themself were not a member for that period;
  • A backing of a SIG could be equivalent.

Anyway, I do not see a problem for people to wait for 12 month before being  nominated for a director.

 

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, 13 September 2020 at 10:38 pm
To: Adam Steer <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

 

Yes! We want the board to be made up of engaged and motivated people with the community's best interests at heart. Our community is full of people like this! I reckon our best bet is to articulate that vision, create the conditions for those people to step forward and participate, and make sure the members who elect the board have enough visibility into it all to make informed decisions.

 

Cheers

John

 

On Sun, 13 Sep 2020, 3:48 pm Adam Steer, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey John, all

 

That clause was aimed at preventing people whos only interest is to get on boards getting on the board, and has been a topic of debate. Based on your input about the constitution its probably a good idea to just replace it with ’nominees shall be nominated in accordance with clause 74 and 19.3 of the constitution [link])

 

It is worth remembering we all just kinda nominated ourselves at the start.

 

Cheers

 

Adam

 

 

 

On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 05:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

 

Great work, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the election process. I've added a couple of comments to the Google doc, but I have a specific concern that may need a little more room for discussion.

 

In the proposed process, there is a section called "Minimum term of membership", which says:

To be nominated as a Director, you must have been a Member for a minimum of 12 months (calculated from closing date of elections). This ensures that potential Directors have had the opportunity to participate in OSGeo Oceania business, and gives the Board an opportunity to mentor those who would like to take up leadership positions in the future.

 

I think there are a couple of issues with this:

 

1) It's not an effective way to assess someone's capability to act as a director.

 

For example, I want to nominate Edwin Liava'a to stand in the next election. Edwin was a keynote speaker at last year's conference in Wellington, and has been a highly engaged leader in the Pacific open geospatial community for many years. He's volunteered on a number of committees that would count as OSGeo Oceania business. He's done plenty to prove his dedication to this community, would be an asset to the organisation, and would be an effective voice from the Pacific, which to date has been missing from the board.

 

But (as far as I can tell) Edwin's not currently a formal member, so by this clause he wouldn't be qualified to serve as a director, even if he became a member now.

 

My point is, there are likely many people in our community who would be excellent additions to the board, and the length of their membership doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of their potential for contribution. If someone has a valuable contribution to make, why would we want to put this up as an obstacle?

 

2) It may not be within the board's scope to decide who is qualified to serve as a future director.

 

Required qualifications to serve as a director are already defined in the constitution (section 74: simply, "Each Director must be a Member").

 

Members' rights to nominate are also defined there, subject to this qualification (section 79.3: "Any Member may nominate a person who is eligible for appointment under clause 74 to serve as a Director.").

 

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use the election process to create additional eligibility hurdles, it seems this might be impacting on members' rights.

 

If a nomination were declared ineligible based on this section in the election process, could a constitutional challenge be made? If the election process were found to be in conflict with the constitution, could this potentially render the election invalid? Obviously it's a hypothetical, unlikely scenario, but maybe not impossible.

 

My feeling is the election process would be better without this section. If there are new director eligibility requirements to add, it seems a lot safer to stick to using constitution amendments, which would require formal assent by the membership through a statutory process.

 

Cheers

John

 

 

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,

 

Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.

 

You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.

 

The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.

 

Thank you for your contribution!

 

On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania


--
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What is an OSGeo Oceania Member [was: Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline]

Bruce Bannerman-3
In reply to this post by Martin Tomko
Hello everyone,

I believe that OSGeo Oceania has lost its way on this.

What is a ‘member’?

I understand that for most OSGeo communities, a member of the community is someone who self identifies as being a member and participates constructively in community activities.

The member’s participation, actions and community standing are taken into account when nominations and voting are called for and conducted.

This is how the concept of ‘Member’ has been treated  for most of the 14+ years that I’ve been involved with the local OSGeo AustNZ and now Oceania Community.

Somewhere along the way over the last year or so, we have lost our way and the term ‘Member’ has come to be overloaded and mean something else.

I think that this evolved over discussions as to who can vote for OSGeo Oceania board members.

My 2c.

Kind regards,

Bruce


> On 14 Sep 2020, at 09:46, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I believe that to stand as a director, members need to demonstrate that a member has been active for a period of time, in good faith.
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an OSGeo Oceania Member [was: Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline]

adam steer-2
Hi Bruce, all

When OSGeo Oceania became an organisation ( a company limited by guarantee ) in early 2019 [see 1] it needed to have 'members' to vote on things, defined by ASIC rules rather than 'being around and interested and doing cool things'.

So an 'OSGeo Oceania member' grew a formal definition of 'someone who has signed up to be a member of the company limited by guarantee using this form: https://bit.ly/35zSXHN'

In acknowledgement of the long tradition of 'just join in', the barrier to entry to this new definition of 'membership' has been made very low - lower than voting rights in OSGeo (you need to be nominated by an existing person with voting rights) or OpenStreetMap (pay money every year).

All that came about because we (the people who set in motion the company limited by guarantee, of which I am one) needed a way to handle money and resources to do things, and then tried to set the lowest bar possible for eligibility to vote in board elections / nominate to join the board.

With that super low bar in mind, there has been some discussion (with reference to the quote from Martin's post) about how to define 'commitment to the community' from people who nominate to be on the board, controlling the assets and direction of an organisation which is set up with the aim of supporting the community.

The aim is also to include everyone who *doesn't* want to take that path - so far there have been no divisions set aside from board eligibility and voting - for example just like OSGeo, nobody gets a discount on conferences or events for being a member, because that sets an artificial divide in the community.

Hope that helps explain things a bit. And please keep asking questions - we need to pay attention if things like this are not being communicated well.

Adam


_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

Edwin Liava'a
In reply to this post by John Bryant
Hi John,

I submitted my application to be a member of the Oceania Chapter
during FOSS4G in Wellington 2019.

Apparently it didn't happen or it was not approved? We were all there
at the AGM but I don't know what happened and I've never received a
single email from the list until I subscribed to the mailing list last
week :)

Anyway, it's not a big deal for me since we are all volunteers and if
my contribution is not needed by the members of this chapter then I'll
move on and keep doing what I do best in promoting FOSS in my own way,
as I used to.

cheers,

Edwin

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 12:27, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Thanks, I agree that directors should have "skin in the game" as well, but a simple 12 month membership requirement would probably disqualify some people who'd be great. Martin's suggested modifications could perhaps help address this. But I still think it would need to be addressed in the constitution, and not by board-level decision.
>
> Cheers
> John
>
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:59, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hey John
>>
>> I'm not sure about the 12 month qualifying period either, but I do think that having 'skin in the game' as Adam has said many times is important. If someone wants to be on the Board, the smallest hurdle is being a member and having the foresight to be a member, and presumably involved, for at least 12 months is not really a big deal.
>>
>> That said though, you are right that we cannot override the constitution in our election process... So while we may 'define a process' in clause 79.1, I don't think we can further constrain eligibility, as per clause 74.
>>
>> So I think we need to remove this qualifier from the election process and refer to the constitution.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:46, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi John, Adam, all
>>>
>>> I agree with your second point, John, that this should be covered by the constitution. I awas myself uneasy with the decision that the board decides this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not in agreement with the first point. I believe that we are now past the ”storming and forming” stage of the organisation, and our initial days.
>>>
>>> I believe that to stand as a director, members need to demonstrate that a member has been active for a period of time, in good faith. The issues OSM had in the last year are a testament. The organisation is now managing substantial funds, and carries responsibility.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This could be addressed in a number of ways, in my eyes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A candidate could have the backing of a number of members that have been members for at least 12 months ( I suggest 3), if the candidate themself were not a member for that period;
>>> A backing of a SIG could be equivalent.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I do not see a problem for people to wait for 12 month before being  nominated for a director.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of John Bryant <[hidden email]>
>>> Date: Sunday, 13 September 2020 at 10:38 pm
>>> To: Adam Steer <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes! We want the board to be made up of engaged and motivated people with the community's best interests at heart. Our community is full of people like this! I reckon our best bet is to articulate that vision, create the conditions for those people to step forward and participate, and make sure the members who elect the board have enough visibility into it all to make informed decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2020, 3:48 pm Adam Steer, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey John, all
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That clause was aimed at preventing people whos only interest is to get on boards getting on the board, and has been a topic of debate. Based on your input about the constitution its probably a good idea to just replace it with ’nominees shall be nominated in accordance with clause 74 and 19.3 of the constitution [link])
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is worth remembering we all just kinda nominated ourselves at the start.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 05:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Great work, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the election process. I've added a couple of comments to the Google doc, but I have a specific concern that may need a little more room for discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the proposed process, there is a section called "Minimum term of membership", which says:
>>>
>>> To be nominated as a Director, you must have been a Member for a minimum of 12 months (calculated from closing date of elections). This ensures that potential Directors have had the opportunity to participate in OSGeo Oceania business, and gives the Board an opportunity to mentor those who would like to take up leadership positions in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think there are a couple of issues with this:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) It's not an effective way to assess someone's capability to act as a director.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For example, I want to nominate Edwin Liava'a to stand in the next election. Edwin was a keynote speaker at last year's conference in Wellington, and has been a highly engaged leader in the Pacific open geospatial community for many years. He's volunteered on a number of committees that would count as OSGeo Oceania business. He's done plenty to prove his dedication to this community, would be an asset to the organisation, and would be an effective voice from the Pacific, which to date has been missing from the board.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But (as far as I can tell) Edwin's not currently a formal member, so by this clause he wouldn't be qualified to serve as a director, even if he became a member now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My point is, there are likely many people in our community who would be excellent additions to the board, and the length of their membership doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of their potential for contribution. If someone has a valuable contribution to make, why would we want to put this up as an obstacle?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) It may not be within the board's scope to decide who is qualified to serve as a future director.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Required qualifications to serve as a director are already defined in the constitution (section 74: simply, "Each Director must be a Member").
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Members' rights to nominate are also defined there, subject to this qualification (section 79.3: "Any Member may nominate a person who is eligible for appointment under clause 74 to serve as a Director.").
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use the election process to create additional eligibility hurdles, it seems this might be impacting on members' rights.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If a nomination were declared ineligible based on this section in the election process, could a constitutional challenge be made? If the election process were found to be in conflict with the constitution, could this potentially render the election invalid? Obviously it's a hypothetical, unlikely scenario, but maybe not impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My feeling is the election process would be better without this section. If there are new director eligibility requirements to add, it seems a lot safer to stick to using constitution amendments, which would require formal assent by the membership through a statutory process.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your contribution!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex Leith
>> m: 0419189050
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

Alex Leith
Hi Edwin

I can see the responses to our membership form, which was opened on the 19th of November and I can't see your name on the list of responses.

We potentially should email people responses to the form, so that they have a copy for their records, but I assure you that we have a well meaning team working on the membership working group who would not have disapproved of your application.


Kind regards,

Alex


On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 17:26, Edwin Liava'a <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi John,

I submitted my application to be a member of the Oceania Chapter
during FOSS4G in Wellington 2019.

Apparently it didn't happen or it was not approved? We were all there
at the AGM but I don't know what happened and I've never received a
single email from the list until I subscribed to the mailing list last
week :)

Anyway, it's not a big deal for me since we are all volunteers and if
my contribution is not needed by the members of this chapter then I'll
move on and keep doing what I do best in promoting FOSS in my own way,
as I used to.

cheers,

Edwin

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 12:27, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, I agree that directors should have "skin in the game" as well, but a simple 12 month membership requirement would probably disqualify some people who'd be great. Martin's suggested modifications could perhaps help address this. But I still think it would need to be addressed in the constitution, and not by board-level decision.
>
> Cheers
> John
>
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:59, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hey John
>>
>> I'm not sure about the 12 month qualifying period either, but I do think that having 'skin in the game' as Adam has said many times is important. If someone wants to be on the Board, the smallest hurdle is being a member and having the foresight to be a member, and presumably involved, for at least 12 months is not really a big deal.
>>
>> That said though, you are right that we cannot override the constitution in our election process... So while we may 'define a process' in clause 79.1, I don't think we can further constrain eligibility, as per clause 74.
>>
>> So I think we need to remove this qualifier from the election process and refer to the constitution.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:46, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi John, Adam, all
>>>
>>> I agree with your second point, John, that this should be covered by the constitution. I awas myself uneasy with the decision that the board decides this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not in agreement with the first point. I believe that we are now past the ”storming and forming” stage of the organisation, and our initial days.
>>>
>>> I believe that to stand as a director, members need to demonstrate that a member has been active for a period of time, in good faith. The issues OSM had in the last year are a testament. The organisation is now managing substantial funds, and carries responsibility.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This could be addressed in a number of ways, in my eyes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A candidate could have the backing of a number of members that have been members for at least 12 months ( I suggest 3), if the candidate themself were not a member for that period;
>>> A backing of a SIG could be equivalent.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I do not see a problem for people to wait for 12 month before being  nominated for a director.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of John Bryant <[hidden email]>
>>> Date: Sunday, 13 September 2020 at 10:38 pm
>>> To: Adam Steer <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes! We want the board to be made up of engaged and motivated people with the community's best interests at heart. Our community is full of people like this! I reckon our best bet is to articulate that vision, create the conditions for those people to step forward and participate, and make sure the members who elect the board have enough visibility into it all to make informed decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2020, 3:48 pm Adam Steer, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey John, all
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That clause was aimed at preventing people whos only interest is to get on boards getting on the board, and has been a topic of debate. Based on your input about the constitution its probably a good idea to just replace it with ’nominees shall be nominated in accordance with clause 74 and 19.3 of the constitution [link])
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is worth remembering we all just kinda nominated ourselves at the start.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 05:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Great work, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the election process. I've added a couple of comments to the Google doc, but I have a specific concern that may need a little more room for discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the proposed process, there is a section called "Minimum term of membership", which says:
>>>
>>> To be nominated as a Director, you must have been a Member for a minimum of 12 months (calculated from closing date of elections). This ensures that potential Directors have had the opportunity to participate in OSGeo Oceania business, and gives the Board an opportunity to mentor those who would like to take up leadership positions in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think there are a couple of issues with this:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) It's not an effective way to assess someone's capability to act as a director.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For example, I want to nominate Edwin Liava'a to stand in the next election. Edwin was a keynote speaker at last year's conference in Wellington, and has been a highly engaged leader in the Pacific open geospatial community for many years. He's volunteered on a number of committees that would count as OSGeo Oceania business. He's done plenty to prove his dedication to this community, would be an asset to the organisation, and would be an effective voice from the Pacific, which to date has been missing from the board.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But (as far as I can tell) Edwin's not currently a formal member, so by this clause he wouldn't be qualified to serve as a director, even if he became a member now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My point is, there are likely many people in our community who would be excellent additions to the board, and the length of their membership doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of their potential for contribution. If someone has a valuable contribution to make, why would we want to put this up as an obstacle?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) It may not be within the board's scope to decide who is qualified to serve as a future director.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Required qualifications to serve as a director are already defined in the constitution (section 74: simply, "Each Director must be a Member").
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Members' rights to nominate are also defined there, subject to this qualification (section 79.3: "Any Member may nominate a person who is eligible for appointment under clause 74 to serve as a Director.").
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use the election process to create additional eligibility hurdles, it seems this might be impacting on members' rights.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If a nomination were declared ineligible based on this section in the election process, could a constitutional challenge be made? If the election process were found to be in conflict with the constitution, could this potentially render the election invalid? Obviously it's a hypothetical, unlikely scenario, but maybe not impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My feeling is the election process would be better without this section. If there are new director eligibility requirements to add, it seems a lot safer to stick to using constitution amendments, which would require formal assent by the membership through a statutory process.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your contribution!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex Leith
>> m: 0419189050
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania


--
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

John Bryant
In reply to this post by Edwin Liava'a
Hi Edwin, I'm not sure what happened, someone else might be in a better position to figure that out, but I'm absolutely sure no harm was intended and there'd be no reason not to approve your application. I think what it shows is that the system is not perfect, and we should be working together as a community to break down barriers, rather than build them up.

From my perspective, your contribution is very much needed by the members of this chapter.

Cheers!
John

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 15:26, Edwin Liava'a <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi John,

I submitted my application to be a member of the Oceania Chapter
during FOSS4G in Wellington 2019.

Apparently it didn't happen or it was not approved? We were all there
at the AGM but I don't know what happened and I've never received a
single email from the list until I subscribed to the mailing list last
week :)

Anyway, it's not a big deal for me since we are all volunteers and if
my contribution is not needed by the members of this chapter then I'll
move on and keep doing what I do best in promoting FOSS in my own way,
as I used to.

cheers,

Edwin

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 12:27, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, I agree that directors should have "skin in the game" as well, but a simple 12 month membership requirement would probably disqualify some people who'd be great. Martin's suggested modifications could perhaps help address this. But I still think it would need to be addressed in the constitution, and not by board-level decision.
>
> Cheers
> John
>
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:59, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hey John
>>
>> I'm not sure about the 12 month qualifying period either, but I do think that having 'skin in the game' as Adam has said many times is important. If someone wants to be on the Board, the smallest hurdle is being a member and having the foresight to be a member, and presumably involved, for at least 12 months is not really a big deal.
>>
>> That said though, you are right that we cannot override the constitution in our election process... So while we may 'define a process' in clause 79.1, I don't think we can further constrain eligibility, as per clause 74.
>>
>> So I think we need to remove this qualifier from the election process and refer to the constitution.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:46, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi John, Adam, all
>>>
>>> I agree with your second point, John, that this should be covered by the constitution. I awas myself uneasy with the decision that the board decides this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not in agreement with the first point. I believe that we are now past the ”storming and forming” stage of the organisation, and our initial days.
>>>
>>> I believe that to stand as a director, members need to demonstrate that a member has been active for a period of time, in good faith. The issues OSM had in the last year are a testament. The organisation is now managing substantial funds, and carries responsibility.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This could be addressed in a number of ways, in my eyes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A candidate could have the backing of a number of members that have been members for at least 12 months ( I suggest 3), if the candidate themself were not a member for that period;
>>> A backing of a SIG could be equivalent.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I do not see a problem for people to wait for 12 month before being  nominated for a director.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of John Bryant <[hidden email]>
>>> Date: Sunday, 13 September 2020 at 10:38 pm
>>> To: Adam Steer <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes! We want the board to be made up of engaged and motivated people with the community's best interests at heart. Our community is full of people like this! I reckon our best bet is to articulate that vision, create the conditions for those people to step forward and participate, and make sure the members who elect the board have enough visibility into it all to make informed decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2020, 3:48 pm Adam Steer, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey John, all
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That clause was aimed at preventing people whos only interest is to get on boards getting on the board, and has been a topic of debate. Based on your input about the constitution its probably a good idea to just replace it with ’nominees shall be nominated in accordance with clause 74 and 19.3 of the constitution [link])
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is worth remembering we all just kinda nominated ourselves at the start.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 05:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Great work, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the election process. I've added a couple of comments to the Google doc, but I have a specific concern that may need a little more room for discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the proposed process, there is a section called "Minimum term of membership", which says:
>>>
>>> To be nominated as a Director, you must have been a Member for a minimum of 12 months (calculated from closing date of elections). This ensures that potential Directors have had the opportunity to participate in OSGeo Oceania business, and gives the Board an opportunity to mentor those who would like to take up leadership positions in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think there are a couple of issues with this:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) It's not an effective way to assess someone's capability to act as a director.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For example, I want to nominate Edwin Liava'a to stand in the next election. Edwin was a keynote speaker at last year's conference in Wellington, and has been a highly engaged leader in the Pacific open geospatial community for many years. He's volunteered on a number of committees that would count as OSGeo Oceania business. He's done plenty to prove his dedication to this community, would be an asset to the organisation, and would be an effective voice from the Pacific, which to date has been missing from the board.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But (as far as I can tell) Edwin's not currently a formal member, so by this clause he wouldn't be qualified to serve as a director, even if he became a member now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My point is, there are likely many people in our community who would be excellent additions to the board, and the length of their membership doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of their potential for contribution. If someone has a valuable contribution to make, why would we want to put this up as an obstacle?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) It may not be within the board's scope to decide who is qualified to serve as a future director.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Required qualifications to serve as a director are already defined in the constitution (section 74: simply, "Each Director must be a Member").
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Members' rights to nominate are also defined there, subject to this qualification (section 79.3: "Any Member may nominate a person who is eligible for appointment under clause 74 to serve as a Director.").
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use the election process to create additional eligibility hurdles, it seems this might be impacting on members' rights.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If a nomination were declared ineligible based on this section in the election process, could a constitutional challenge be made? If the election process were found to be in conflict with the constitution, could this potentially render the election invalid? Obviously it's a hypothetical, unlikely scenario, but maybe not impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My feeling is the election process would be better without this section. If there are new director eligibility requirements to add, it seems a lot safer to stick to using constitution amendments, which would require formal assent by the membership through a statutory process.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your contribution!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex Leith
>> m: 0419189050
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

adam steer-2
hey all

Edwin's details are in a bunch of responses to a deprecated version of the form. So he's definitely filled it in :)

Our apologies Edwin, we will get you listed as a 'voting member' (ref: what is a member? [1])  of OSGeo Oceania ASAP. So yes you are definitely eligible for election to the board by any criteria we have tossed around so far.

...and echoing John, thanks for your work so far (and into the future).

Cheers

Adam


_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

Edwin Liava'a
In reply to this post by Alex Leith
Thanks Alex and John,

It's possible that there must have been a glitch with the tablet I was
using to sign-up with, cause I remembered clearly seeing it being
submitted and I asked the girl with the tablet if it has been
submitted and she confirmed.

It's water under the bridge now, will sign up again
accordingly...hopefully this time it will go through. :)

cheers,

Edwin

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 17:35, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi Edwin
>
> I can see the responses to our membership form, which was opened on the 19th of November and I can't see your name on the list of responses.
>
> We potentially should email people responses to the form, so that they have a copy for their records, but I assure you that we have a well meaning team working on the membership working group who would not have disapproved of your application.
>
> You can sign up here if you'd like to be a member: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfyt_YoV6oK4hdVSsZjOACUV5V55J5m9RZtVUDuoFTidzZBDg/viewform
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alex
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 17:26, Edwin Liava'a <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I submitted my application to be a member of the Oceania Chapter
>> during FOSS4G in Wellington 2019.
>>
>> Apparently it didn't happen or it was not approved? We were all there
>> at the AGM but I don't know what happened and I've never received a
>> single email from the list until I subscribed to the mailing list last
>> week :)
>>
>> Anyway, it's not a big deal for me since we are all volunteers and if
>> my contribution is not needed by the members of this chapter then I'll
>> move on and keep doing what I do best in promoting FOSS in my own way,
>> as I used to.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Edwin
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 12:27, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks, I agree that directors should have "skin in the game" as well, but a simple 12 month membership requirement would probably disqualify some people who'd be great. Martin's suggested modifications could perhaps help address this. But I still think it would need to be addressed in the constitution, and not by board-level decision.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:59, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hey John
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure about the 12 month qualifying period either, but I do think that having 'skin in the game' as Adam has said many times is important. If someone wants to be on the Board, the smallest hurdle is being a member and having the foresight to be a member, and presumably involved, for at least 12 months is not really a big deal.
>> >>
>> >> That said though, you are right that we cannot override the constitution in our election process... So while we may 'define a process' in clause 79.1, I don't think we can further constrain eligibility, as per clause 74.
>> >>
>> >> So I think we need to remove this qualifier from the election process and refer to the constitution.
>> >>
>> >> Kind regards,
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:46, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi John, Adam, all
>> >>>
>> >>> I agree with your second point, John, that this should be covered by the constitution. I awas myself uneasy with the decision that the board decides this.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I am not in agreement with the first point. I believe that we are now past the ”storming and forming” stage of the organisation, and our initial days.
>> >>>
>> >>> I believe that to stand as a director, members need to demonstrate that a member has been active for a period of time, in good faith. The issues OSM had in the last year are a testament. The organisation is now managing substantial funds, and carries responsibility.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> This could be addressed in a number of ways, in my eyes:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> A candidate could have the backing of a number of members that have been members for at least 12 months ( I suggest 3), if the candidate themself were not a member for that period;
>> >>> A backing of a SIG could be equivalent.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyway, I do not see a problem for people to wait for 12 month before being  nominated for a director.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Martin
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of John Bryant <[hidden email]>
>> >>> Date: Sunday, 13 September 2020 at 10:38 pm
>> >>> To: Adam Steer <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
>> >>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes! We want the board to be made up of engaged and motivated people with the community's best interests at heart. Our community is full of people like this! I reckon our best bet is to articulate that vision, create the conditions for those people to step forward and participate, and make sure the members who elect the board have enough visibility into it all to make informed decisions.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>>
>> >>> John
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2020, 3:48 pm Adam Steer, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hey John, all
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> That clause was aimed at preventing people whos only interest is to get on boards getting on the board, and has been a topic of debate. Based on your input about the constitution its probably a good idea to just replace it with ’nominees shall be nominated in accordance with clause 74 and 19.3 of the constitution [link])
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It is worth remembering we all just kinda nominated ourselves at the start.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Adam
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 05:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi all,
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Great work, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the election process. I've added a couple of comments to the Google doc, but I have a specific concern that may need a little more room for discussion.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> In the proposed process, there is a section called "Minimum term of membership", which says:
>> >>>
>> >>> To be nominated as a Director, you must have been a Member for a minimum of 12 months (calculated from closing date of elections). This ensures that potential Directors have had the opportunity to participate in OSGeo Oceania business, and gives the Board an opportunity to mentor those who would like to take up leadership positions in the future.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I think there are a couple of issues with this:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 1) It's not an effective way to assess someone's capability to act as a director.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> For example, I want to nominate Edwin Liava'a to stand in the next election. Edwin was a keynote speaker at last year's conference in Wellington, and has been a highly engaged leader in the Pacific open geospatial community for many years. He's volunteered on a number of committees that would count as OSGeo Oceania business. He's done plenty to prove his dedication to this community, would be an asset to the organisation, and would be an effective voice from the Pacific, which to date has been missing from the board.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> But (as far as I can tell) Edwin's not currently a formal member, so by this clause he wouldn't be qualified to serve as a director, even if he became a member now.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> My point is, there are likely many people in our community who would be excellent additions to the board, and the length of their membership doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of their potential for contribution. If someone has a valuable contribution to make, why would we want to put this up as an obstacle?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 2) It may not be within the board's scope to decide who is qualified to serve as a future director.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Required qualifications to serve as a director are already defined in the constitution (section 74: simply, "Each Director must be a Member").
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Members' rights to nominate are also defined there, subject to this qualification (section 79.3: "Any Member may nominate a person who is eligible for appointment under clause 74 to serve as a Director.").
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm not sure that it's appropriate to use the election process to create additional eligibility hurdles, it seems this might be impacting on members' rights.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> If a nomination were declared ineligible based on this section in the election process, could a constitutional challenge be made? If the election process were found to be in conflict with the constitution, could this potentially render the election invalid? Obviously it's a hypothetical, unlikely scenario, but maybe not impossible.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> My feeling is the election process would be better without this section. If there are new director eligibility requirements to add, it seems a lot safer to stick to using constitution amendments, which would require formal assent by the membership through a statutory process.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>>
>> >>> John
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Thank you for your contribution!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Oceania mailing list
>> >>> [hidden email]
>> >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Oceania mailing list
>> >>> [hidden email]
>> >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Oceania mailing list
>> >>> [hidden email]
>> >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Alex Leith
>> >> m: 0419189050
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Oceania mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oceania mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
>
>
> --
> Alex Leith
> m: 0419189050
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

Edwin Liava'a
In reply to this post by adam steer-2
Hi Adam,

Oi ohk..then I don't need to resubmit...I knew I filled the form
before heading off to the bar for the beers hhhhh.

Tonnes of thanks everyone.

cheers,

Edwin

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 17:43, Adam Steer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> hey all
>
> Edwin's details are in a bunch of responses to a deprecated version of the form. So he's definitely filled it in :)
>
> Our apologies Edwin, we will get you listed as a 'voting member' (ref: what is a member? [1])  of OSGeo Oceania ASAP. So yes you are definitely eligible for election to the board by any criteria we have tossed around so far.
>
> ...and echoing John, thanks for your work so far (and into the future).
>
> Cheers
>
> Adam
>
> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/2020-September/002349.html
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

John Bryant
In reply to this post by Hamish Campbell
Hi, I have another bit of feedback on the proposed election process, I hope it's seen as a constructive contribution.

Currently, there's an item scheduled for 5 days after the election, that currently reads:

Meeting to Elect Directors is held
Advise board of due diligence, acceptance of consent forms, vote to ratify appointment(s)
Accept resignations of outgoing directors
Current Chair, Deputy Chair, Secretary and Treasurer step down


The "Meeting to Elect Directors" is mandated in the constitution (s. 78), which says it must be held as a General Meeting (ie. all members are invited to attend and vote on the business of the meeting).

The proposed process says this meeting will take place a few days after the election, to vote on the appointments. But running both an election and then a separate General Meeting could be quite onerous, and shouldn't be necessary. The constitution was written so that the election itself could be this General Meeting, with the membership resolving to appoint the people who win the election as directors. The 2019 election process was planned in this way, based on professional advice.

Why this is important: The Meeting to Elect Directors is the instrument that empowers the OSGeo Oceania membership to choose the directors of the organisation. It dictates the timing of directors' terms (s. 75), and when "Officers" (chair, etc) must step down (s. 80). If the process of implementing this meeting is too onerous, it uses volunteer resources, may become difficult to execute properly, and (worst case scenario) could cause conflict or disenfranchisement if the process isn't clear, or isn't followed.

I'm proposing the process be adjusted so that the election itself is included in the Meeting to Elect Directors, and the results of the election are treated as the resolution of the meeting, so a separate General Meeting isn't necessary. If others agree, I'm happy to try and make more specific suggestions.

Cheers
John


On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:58, Hamish Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear OSGeo Oceania Members,

Our proposed November 2020 election process and timeline for appointing directors to the board requires your review and feedback.

You can review and comment directly on the Google Doc. We also welcome feedback on the OSGeo Oceania mailing list by replying to this email. Feedback to the board must be received by midnight on Wednesday, September 23rd.

The board will review the feedback and finalize the election process and timeline in early October.

Thank you for your contribution!

On behalf of the OSGeo Oceania Election Group
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

Graeme Fitzpatrick



On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 13:32, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
the election itself could be this General Meeting, with the membership resolving to appoint the people who win the election as directors.

That's certainly the way that every Association I've been involved with has worked.

However, they have all been "locally" based so that most members are able to attend the Meeting, so I'm not sure how it would work with members spread over such a wide area?

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

John Bryant
The constitution (s 41) says:

The Chair may (with the approval of the meeting) confer with Members and others by
radio, telephone, facsimile, computer, Internet, closed circuit television or other electronic
means of audio or audio-visual communication. Any resolution passed using such a system
is to be treated as having been passed at a meeting of the Members held on the day and at
the time the conference was held — even if the Members were not present together in one
place at the time. This clause does not limit the discretion of the Members to regulate their
meetings.

 So I think using an internet-based remote electronic voting system over the course of a week would be reasonable?

On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 12:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 13:32, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
the election itself could be this General Meeting, with the membership resolving to appoint the people who win the election as directors.

That's certainly the way that every Association I've been involved with has worked.

However, they have all been "locally" based so that most members are able to attend the Meeting, so I'm not sure how it would work with members spread over such a wide area?

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for Feedback Due 23rd Sept - Board Election Process & Timeline

adam steer-2
Hi John

The intent of that meeting a few days after voting is to give outgoing and incoming directors time to complete the required forms and provide clarity about the handover of responsibilities / liabilities - resolving issues around timing which arose after the 2019 election.

An alternative might be to distribute proforma ASIC paperwork to all nominees and outgoing directors - so that the documents are signed on the day results are announced. This, however, leaves no time for election scrutiny by the community, members or the board.

Perhaps a label change to 'meeting to confirm directors' or 'board handover' (nice ways of saying official ASIC paperwork day) would help? If that still feels like it contravenes the constitution, perhaps a tweak can be proposed.

Cheers,

Adam

_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
12