Current election cycle discussion

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Current election cycle discussion

jody.garnett
Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility of the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead. 

I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to our CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road and I feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.

A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has our trust (this is of course assumed)

B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a difficult job and has our trust. 

C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced. 

This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is realistically available.  We have also accepted the CRO’s comittment and balance our respect for their integrity and our concern for this election placing more responsibility and attention on their role then usual. 

I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss. I suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the influence that board has, especially in the case of elections which very carefully a hands off affair. 
--
--
Jody Garnett

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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

Michael Smith
B publicly, C privately. 

I think the CRO has performed amazingly and deserves all our support. To me, everything has been handled transparently and above board. 

Mike

Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer


From: Board <[hidden email]> on behalf of Jody Garnett <[hidden email]>
Date: Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 1:38 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Board] Current election cycle discussion

Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility of the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead. 

I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to our CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road and I feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.

A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has our trust (this is of course assumed)

B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a difficult job and has our trust. 

C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced. 

This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is realistically available.  We have also accepted the CRO’s comittment and balance our respect for their integrity and our concern for this election placing more responsibility and attention on their role then usual. 

I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss. I suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the influence that board has, especially in the case of elections which very carefully a hands off affair. 
--
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

Angelos Tzotsos
Perhaps we should schedule a meeting within 24h to discuss election issues raised in the mailing lists, and then make a public announcement? Or just hear from our CRO and offer assistance.
Personally, I volunteer to help, since I am not involved in the elections as a candidate.

Best,
Angelos

On 10/21/2017 08:47 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
B publicly, C privately.

I think the CRO has performed amazingly and deserves all our support. To me,
everything has been handled transparently and above board.

Mike

Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
[hidden email]


From:  Board [hidden email] on behalf of Jody Garnett
[hidden email]
Date:  Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 1:38 PM
To:  [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject:  [Board] Current election cycle discussion

Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility of
the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.

I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to our
CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road and I
feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.

A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has our
trust (this is of course assumed)

B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
difficult job and has our trust.

C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.

This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is realistically
available.  We have also accepted the CRO¹s comittment and balance our respect
for their integrity and our concern for this election placing more
responsibility and attention on their role then usual.

I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss. I
suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the influence
that board has, especially in the case of elections which very carefully a
hands off affair.
-- 
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list
[hidden email] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board




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


-- 
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos

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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

jody.garnett
I would prefer (a) because you know we should not need to express our trust again :)

I understand though that this election cycle has raised some uncertainty and I would rather issue a statement of support (b) than see that cycle continue.

I was thinking hard on (c) and then noticed it is not our responsibility. We can hold ourself open to offering assistance of asked, and trust CRO to ask for appropriate assistance if needful. I would feel more comfortable if an already recognized officer was provided for assistance considering director and officer liability etc...

Thanks everyone for being professional on this one (by which I mean careful, considerate, respectful).
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps we should schedule a meeting within 24h to discuss election issues raised in the mailing lists, and then make a public announcement? Or just hear from our CRO and offer assistance.
Personally, I volunteer to help, since I am not involved in the elections as a candidate.

Best,
Angelos


On 10/21/2017 08:47 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
B publicly, C privately.

I think the CRO has performed amazingly and deserves all our support. To me,
everything has been handled transparently and above board.

Mike

Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
[hidden email]


From:  Board [hidden email] on behalf of Jody Garnett
[hidden email]
Date:  Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 1:38 PM
To:  [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject:  [Board] Current election cycle discussion

Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility of
the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.

I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to our
CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road and I
feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.

A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has our
trust (this is of course assumed)

B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
difficult job and has our trust.

C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.

This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is realistically
available.  We have also accepted the CRO¹s comittment and balance our respect
for their integrity and our concern for this election placing more
responsibility and attention on their role then usual.

I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss. I
suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the influence
that board has, especially in the case of elections which very carefully a
hands off affair.
-- 
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list
[hidden email] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board




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


-- 
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
--
--
Jody Garnett

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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

Michael Smith
I would also agree with a.

Mike 

From: Jody Garnett <[hidden email]>
Date: Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM
To: Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]>, Michael Smith <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Board] Current election cycle discussion

I would prefer (a) because you know we should not need to express our trust again :)

I understand though that this election cycle has raised some uncertainty and I would rather issue a statement of support (b) than see that cycle continue.

I was thinking hard on (c) and then noticed it is not our responsibility. We can hold ourself open to offering assistance of asked, and trust CRO to ask for appropriate assistance if needful. I would feel more comfortable if an already recognized officer was provided for assistance considering director and officer liability etc...

Thanks everyone for being professional on this one (by which I mean careful, considerate, respectful).
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps we should schedule a meeting within 24h to discuss election issues raised in the mailing lists, and then make a public announcement? Or just hear from our CRO and offer assistance.
Personally, I volunteer to help, since I am not involved in the elections as a candidate.

Best,
Angelos


On 10/21/2017 08:47 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
B publicly, C privately.

I think the CRO has performed amazingly and deserves all our support. To me,
everything has been handled transparently and above board.

Mike

Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
[hidden email]


From:  Board [hidden email] on behalf of Jody Garnett
[hidden email]
Date:  Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 1:38 PM
To:  [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject:  [Board] Current election cycle discussion

Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility of
the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.

I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to our
CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road and I
feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.

A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has our
trust (this is of course assumed)

B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
difficult job and has our trust.

C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.

This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is realistically
available.  We have also accepted the CRO¹s comittment and balance our respect
for their integrity and our concern for this election placing more
responsibility and attention on their role then usual.

I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss. I
suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the influence
that board has, especially in the case of elections which very carefully a
hands off affair.
--
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list
[hidden email] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

      

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


--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
--
--
Jody Garnett

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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

Helena Mitasova-7
I agree with a) as well, I think that at this point the board should stay out of the election process.

Helena

On Oct 21, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Michael Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would also agree with a.

Mike 

From: Jody Garnett <[hidden email]>
Date: Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM
To: Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]>, Michael Smith <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Board] Current election cycle discussion

I would prefer (a) because you know we should not need to express our trust again :)

I understand though that this election cycle has raised some uncertainty and I would rather issue a statement of support (b) than see that cycle continue.

I was thinking hard on (c) and then noticed it is not our responsibility. We can hold ourself open to offering assistance of asked, and trust CRO to ask for appropriate assistance if needful. I would feel more comfortable if an already recognized officer was provided for assistance considering director and officer liability etc...

Thanks everyone for being professional on this one (by which I mean careful, considerate, respectful).
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps we should schedule a meeting within 24h to discuss election issues raised in the mailing lists, and then make a public announcement? Or just hear from our CRO and offer assistance.
Personally, I volunteer to help, since I am not involved in the elections as a candidate.

Best,
Angelos


On 10/21/2017 08:47 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
B publicly, C privately.

I think the CRO has performed amazingly and deserves all our support. To me,
everything has been handled transparently and above board.

Mike

Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
[hidden email]


From:  Board [hidden email] on behalf of Jody Garnett
[hidden email]
Date:  Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 1:38 PM
To:  [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject:  [Board] Current election cycle discussion

Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility of
the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.

I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to our
CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road and I
feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.

A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has our
trust (this is of course assumed)

B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
difficult job and has our trust.

C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.

This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is realistically
available.  We have also accepted the CRO¹s comittment and balance our respect
for their integrity and our concern for this election placing more
responsibility and attention on their role then usual.

I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss. I
suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the influence
that board has, especially in the case of elections which very carefully a
hands off affair.
--
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list
[hidden email] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

      

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

--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
--
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

Helena Mitasova
Professor at the Department of Marine, 
Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
and Center for Geospatial Analytics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
"All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.” 


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

R: Current election cycle discussion

Maria Antonia Brovelli
I agree with a) as well.
Greetings from Buenos Aires.
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Helena Mitasova <[hidden email]>
Data: 21/10/17 16:09 (GMT-03:00)
A: Michael Smith <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [Board] Current election cycle discussion

I agree with a) as well, I think that at this point the board should stay out of the election process.

Helena

On Oct 21, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Michael Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would also agree with a.

Mike 

From: Jody Garnett <[hidden email]>
Date: Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM
To: Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]>, Michael Smith <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Board] Current election cycle discussion

I would prefer (a) because you know we should not need to express our trust again :)

I understand though that this election cycle has raised some uncertainty and I would rather issue a statement of support (b) than see that cycle continue.

I was thinking hard on (c) and then noticed it is not our responsibility. We can hold ourself open to offering assistance of asked, and trust CRO to ask for appropriate assistance if needful. I would feel more comfortable if an already recognized officer was provided for assistance considering director and officer liability etc...

Thanks everyone for being professional on this one (by which I mean careful, considerate, respectful).
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps we should schedule a meeting within 24h to discuss election issues raised in the mailing lists, and then make a public announcement? Or just hear from our CRO and offer assistance.
Personally, I volunteer to help, since I am not involved in the elections as a candidate.

Best,
Angelos


On 10/21/2017 08:47 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
B publicly, C privately.

I think the CRO has performed amazingly and deserves all our support. To me,
everything has been handled transparently and above board.

Mike

Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
[hidden email]


From:  Board [hidden email] on behalf of Jody Garnett
[hidden email]
Date:  Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 1:38 PM
To:  [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject:  [Board] Current election cycle discussion

Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility of
the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.

I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to our
CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road and I
feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.

A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has our
trust (this is of course assumed)

B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
difficult job and has our trust.

C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.

This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is realistically
available.  We have also accepted the CRO¹s comittment and balance our respect
for their integrity and our concern for this election placing more
responsibility and attention on their role then usual.

I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss. I
suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the influence
that board has, especially in the case of elections which very carefully a
hands off affair.
--
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list
[hidden email] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board



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

--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
--
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

Helena Mitasova
Professor at the Department of Marine, 
Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
and Center for Geospatial Analytics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
"All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.” 


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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

jody.garnett
In reply to this post by Helena Mitasova-7

Understood, let’s wait for time zones to kick in and see if other board members have input to consider. 


On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:09 PM Helena Mitasova <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree with a) as well, I think that at this point the board should stay out of the election process.

Helena

On Oct 21, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Michael Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would also agree with a.

Mike 

From: Jody Garnett <[hidden email]>
Date: Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM
To: Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]>, Michael Smith <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Board] Current election cycle discussion

I would prefer (a) because you know we should not need to express our trust again :)

I understand though that this election cycle has raised some uncertainty and I would rather issue a statement of support (b) than see that cycle continue.

I was thinking hard on (c) and then noticed it is not our responsibility. We can hold ourself open to offering assistance of asked, and trust CRO to ask for appropriate assistance if needful. I would feel more comfortable if an already recognized officer was provided for assistance considering director and officer liability etc...

Thanks everyone for being professional on this one (by which I mean careful, considerate, respectful).
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps we should schedule a meeting within 24h to discuss election issues raised in the mailing lists, and then make a public announcement? Or just hear from our CRO and offer assistance.
Personally, I volunteer to help, since I am not involved in the elections as a candidate.

Best,
Angelos


On 10/21/2017 08:47 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
B publicly, C privately.

I think the CRO has performed amazingly and deserves all our support. To me,
everything has been handled transparently and above board.

Mike

Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
[hidden email]


From:  Board [hidden email] on behalf of Jody Garnett
[hidden email]
Date:  Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 1:38 PM
To:  [hidden email] [hidden email]
Subject:  [Board] Current election cycle discussion

Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility of
the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.

I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to our
CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road and I
feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.

A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has our
trust (this is of course assumed)

B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
difficult job and has our trust.

C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.

This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is realistically
available.  We have also accepted the CRO¹s comittment and balance our respect
for their integrity and our concern for this election placing more
responsibility and attention on their role then usual.

I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss. I
suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the influence
that board has, especially in the case of elections which very carefully a
hands off affair.
--
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list
[hidden email] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

      

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

--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
--
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

Helena Mitasova
Professor at the Department of Marine, 
Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
and Center for Geospatial Analytics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
"All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.” 

_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
--
--
Jody Garnett

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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
In reply to this post by Helena Mitasova-7
On 10/22/2017 4:09 AM, Helena Mitasova wrote:
> I agree with a) as well, I think that at this point the board should stay out of the election process.

+1

Venka

>
> Helena
>
>> On Oct 21, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Michael Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I would also agree with a.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> From: Jody Garnett <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>> Date: Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM
>> To: Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>, Michael Smith <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>, "[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>> Subject: Re: [Board] Current election cycle discussion
>>
>>> I would prefer (a) because you know we should not need to express our trust again :)
>>>
>>> I understand though that this election cycle has raised some uncertainty and I would rather issue a statement of support (b) than see that cycle continue.
>>>
>>> I was thinking hard on (c) and then noticed it is not our responsibility. We can hold ourself open to offering assistance of asked, and trust CRO to ask for appropriate assistance if needful. I would feel more comfortable if an already recognized officer was provided for assistance considering director and officer liability etc...
>>>
>>> Thanks everyone for being professional on this one (by which I mean careful, considerate, respectful).
>>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>> Perhaps we should schedule a meeting within 24h to discuss election issues raised in the mailing lists, and then make a public announcement? Or just hear from our CRO and offer assistance.
>>>> Personally, I volunteer to help, since I am not involved in the elections as a candidate.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Angelos
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/21/2017 08:47 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
>>>>> B publicly, C privately.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the CRO has performed amazingly and deserves all our support. To me,
>>>>> everything has been handled transparently and above board.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Smith
>>>>> OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From:  Board <[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]> on behalf of Jody Garnett
>>>>> <[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> Date:  Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 1:38 PM
>>>>> To:  "[hidden email]" <mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> Subject:  [Board] Current election cycle discussion
>>>>>
>>>>>> Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
>>>>>> would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility of
>>>>>> the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to our
>>>>>> CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road and I
>>>>>> feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has our
>>>>>> trust (this is of course assumed)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
>>>>>> difficult job and has our trust.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is realistically
>>>>>> available.  We have also accepted the CRO¹s comittment and balance our respect
>>>>>> for their integrity and our concern for this election placing more
>>>>>> responsibility and attention on their role then usual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
>>>>>> subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss. I
>>>>>> suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the influence
>>>>>> that board has, especially in the case of elections which very carefully a
>>>>>> hands off affair.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jody Garnett
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Board mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Board mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board>
>>>> --
>>>> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>>> Charter Member
>>>> Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>>>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos <http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Jody Garnett
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
> Helena Mitasova
> Professor at the Department of Marine,
> Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
> and Center for Geospatial Analytics
> North Carolina State University
> Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
> [hidden email]
> http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html <http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html>
>
> "All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.”
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>

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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

Sanghee Shin
+1 for A. Game already started and board should not involve in during the game.

Cheers,
Sanghee

2017. 10. 22. 오전 8:54에 "Venkatesh Raghavan" <[hidden email]>님이 작성:
On 10/22/2017 4:09 AM, Helena Mitasova wrote:
I agree with a) as well, I think that at this point the board should stay out of the election process.

+1

Venka


Helena

On Oct 21, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Michael Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would also agree with a.

Mike

From: Jody Garnett <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
Date: Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM
To: Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>, Michael Smith <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>, "[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
Subject: Re: [Board] Current election cycle discussion

I would prefer (a) because you know we should not need to express our trust again :)

I understand though that this election cycle has raised some uncertainty and I would rather issue a statement of support (b) than see that cycle continue.

I was thinking hard on (c) and then noticed it is not our responsibility. We can hold ourself open to offering assistance of asked, and trust CRO to ask for appropriate assistance if needful. I would feel more comfortable if an already recognized officer was provided for assistance considering director and officer liability etc...

Thanks everyone for being professional on this one (by which I mean careful, considerate, respectful).
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
Perhaps we should schedule a meeting within 24h to discuss election issues raised in the mailing lists, and then make a public announcement? Or just hear from our CRO and offer assistance.
Personally, I volunteer to help, since I am not involved in the elections as a candidate.

Best,
Angelos


On 10/21/2017 08:47 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
B publicly, C privately.

I think the CRO has performed amazingly and deserves all our support. To me,
everything has been handled transparently and above board.

Mike

Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>


From:  Board <[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]> on behalf of Jody Garnett
<[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]>
Date:  Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 1:38 PM
To:  "[hidden email]" <mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]>
Subject:  [Board] Current election cycle discussion

Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility of
the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.

I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to our
CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road and I
feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.

A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has our
trust (this is of course assumed)

B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
difficult job and has our trust.

C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.

This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is realistically
available.  We have also accepted the CRO¹s comittment and balance our respect
for their integrity and our concern for this election placing more
responsibility and attention on their role then usual.

I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss. I
suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the influence
that board has, especially in the case of elections which very carefully a
hands off affair.
--
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list
[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board>

_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board>
--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos <http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos>
--
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

Helena Mitasova
Professor at the Department of Marine,
Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
and Center for Geospatial Analytics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
[hidden email]
http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html <http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html>

"All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.”




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


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

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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

jody.garnett
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
Thanks everyone:
  • Maria Brovelli: A
  • Vasile Craciunescu: n/a
  • Jody Garnett: A
  • Anita Graser: - 
  • Helena Mitasova: A
  • Venkatesh Raghavan: A
  • Sanghee Shin: A
  • Michael Smith: B publicly, C privately, A agree
  • Angelos Tzotsos: consider meeting with 24th hours or C
I also note that Maxi has made a request for the board take responsibility and not accept Jeff's withdrawal as a candidate. Venka your email to discuss indicated support for this idea, can you elaborate on your thinking?

--
Jody Garnett

On 21 October 2017 at 10:38, Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> wrote:
Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility of the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead. 

I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to our CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road and I feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.

A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has our trust (this is of course assumed)

B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a difficult job and has our trust. 

C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced. 

This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is realistically available.  We have also accepted the CRO’s comittment and balance our respect for their integrity and our concern for this election placing more responsibility and attention on their role then usual. 

I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss. I suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the influence that board has, especially in the case of elections which very carefully a hands off affair. 
--
--
Jody Garnett


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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

Venkatesh Raghavan
Comments are inline.

On 10/22/2017 12:12 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Thanks everyone:

   - Maria Brovelli: A
   - Vasile Craciunescu: n/a
   - Jody Garnett: A
   - Anita Graser: -
   - Helena Mitasova: A
   - Venkatesh Raghavan: A
   - Sanghee Shin: A
   - Michael Smith: B publicly, C privately, A agree
   - Angelos Tzotsos: consider meeting with 24th hours or C

I also note that Maxi has made a request for the board take responsibility
and not accept Jeff's withdrawal as a candidate. Venka your email to
discuss indicated support for this idea, can you elaborate on your thinking?

It is not for the board to accept or not accept.
It is for the CRO to accept or not accept, I think.
The CRO can, perhaps announce that candidates
are not allowed to withdraw mid-way of the election
process.

Board can take responsibility to request the CRO to
make an announcement that candidates cannot withdraw
mid-way of election.

How to handle matter related to Jeff's can be taken up by the
new board after the election process in over.

Venka


--
Jody Garnett

On 21 October 2017 at 10:38, Jody Garnett [hidden email] wrote:

Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility
of the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.

I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to
our CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road
and I feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.

A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has
our trust (this is of course assumed)

B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
difficult job and has our trust.

C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.

This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is
realistically available.  We have also accepted the CRO’s comittment and
balance our respect for their integrity and our concern for this election
placing more responsibility and attention on their role then usual.

I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss.
I suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the
influence that board has, especially in the case of elections which very
carefully a hands off affair.
--
--
Jody Garnett


      

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



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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

jody.garnett
Thanks Venka, that agrees with my own understanding and thoughts.

--
Jody Garnett

On 21 October 2017 at 20:27, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:
Comments are inline.

On 10/22/2017 12:12 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Thanks everyone:

   - Maria Brovelli: A
   - Vasile Craciunescu: n/a
   - Jody Garnett: A
   - Anita Graser: -
   - Helena Mitasova: A
   - Venkatesh Raghavan: A
   - Sanghee Shin: A
   - Michael Smith: B publicly, C privately, A agree
   - Angelos Tzotsos: consider meeting with 24th hours or C

I also note that Maxi has made a request for the board take responsibility
and not accept Jeff's withdrawal as a candidate. Venka your email to
discuss indicated support for this idea, can you elaborate on your thinking?

It is not for the board to accept or not accept.
It is for the CRO to accept or not accept, I think.
The CRO can, perhaps announce that candidates
are not allowed to withdraw mid-way of the election
process.

Board can take responsibility to request the CRO to
make an announcement that candidates cannot withdraw
mid-way of election.

How to handle matter related to Jeff's can be taken up by the
new board after the election process in over.

Venka

--
Jody Garnett

On 21 October 2017 at 10:38, Jody Garnett [hidden email] wrote:

Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility
of the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.

I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to
our CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road
and I feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.

A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has
our trust (this is of course assumed)

B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
difficult job and has our trust.

C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.

This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is
realistically available.  We have also accepted the CRO’s comittment and
balance our respect for their integrity and our concern for this election
placing more responsibility and attention on their role then usual.

I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss.
I suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the
influence that board has, especially in the case of elections which very
carefully a hands off affair.
--
--
Jody Garnett


      

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




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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

Venkatesh Raghavan
On 10/22/2017 12:34 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Thanks Venka, that agrees with my own understanding and thoughts.

Also, Jeff's request for withdrawal is addressed to CRO.
So, it is responsibility of the present board to provide
the board's opinion to CRO on handling this matter.

Best

Venka

>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 21 October 2017 at 20:27, Venkatesh Raghavan <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Comments are inline.
>>
>> On 10/22/2017 12:12 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>
>> Thanks everyone:
>>
>>     - Maria Brovelli: A
>>     - Vasile Craciunescu: n/a
>>     - Jody Garnett: A
>>     - Anita Graser: -
>>     - Helena Mitasova: A
>>     - Venkatesh Raghavan: A
>>     - Sanghee Shin: A
>>     - Michael Smith: B publicly, C privately, A agree
>>     - Angelos Tzotsos: consider meeting with 24th hours or C
>>
>> I also note that Maxi has made a request for the board take responsibility
>> and not accept Jeff's withdrawal as a candidate. Venka your email to
>> discuss indicated support for this idea, can you elaborate on your thinking?
>>
>>
>> It is not for the board to accept or not accept.
>> It is for the CRO to accept or not accept, I think.
>> The CRO can, perhaps announce that candidates
>> are not allowed to withdraw mid-way of the election
>> process.
>>
>> Board can take responsibility to request the CRO to
>> make an announcement that candidates cannot withdraw
>> mid-way of election.
>>
>> How to handle matter related to Jeff's can be taken up by the
>> new board after the election process in over.
>>
>> Venka
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>> On 21 October 2017 at 10:38, Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
>> would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility
>> of the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.
>>
>> I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to
>> our CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road
>> and I feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.
>>
>> A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has
>> our trust (this is of course assumed)
>>
>> B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
>> difficult job and has our trust.
>>
>> C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.
>>
>> This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is
>> realistically available.  We have also accepted the CRO’s comittment and
>> balance our respect for their integrity and our concern for this election
>> placing more responsibility and attention on their role then usual.
>>
>> I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
>> subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss.
>> I suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the
>> influence that board has, especially in the case of elections which very
>> carefully a hands off affair.
>> --
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing [hidden email]://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>

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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

Sanghee Shin
In reply to this post by jody.garnett

I think both CRO and board do not have the right not to accept the request of withdrawal from any nominees at least that is based on free will.

 

Cheers,

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

 

보낸 사람: [hidden email]
보낸 날짜: 2017 1022일 일요일 오후 12:35
받는 사람: [hidden email]
참조: [hidden email]
제목: Re: [Board] Current election cycle discussion

 

Thanks Venka, that agrees with my own understanding and thoughts.


--

Jody Garnett

 

On 21 October 2017 at 20:27, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Comments are inline.

On 10/22/2017 12:12 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:

Thanks everyone:
 
   - Maria Brovelli: A
   - Vasile Craciunescu: n/a
   - Jody Garnett: A
   - Anita Graser: -
   - Helena Mitasova: A
   - Venkatesh Raghavan: A
   - Sanghee Shin: A
   - Michael Smith: B publicly, C privately, A agree
   - Angelos Tzotsos: consider meeting with 24th hours or C
 
I also note that Maxi has made a request for the board take responsibility
and not accept Jeff's withdrawal as a candidate. Venka your email to
discuss indicated support for this idea, can you elaborate on your thinking?


It is not for the board to accept or not accept.
It is for the CRO to accept or not accept, I think.
The CRO can, perhaps announce that candidates
are not allowed to withdraw mid-way of the election
process.

Board can take responsibility to request the CRO to
make an announcement that candidates cannot withdraw
mid-way of election.

How to handle matter related to Jeff's can be taken up by the
new board after the election process in over.

Venka


 
--
Jody Garnett
 
On 21 October 2017 at 10:38, Jody Garnett [hidden email] wrote:
 
Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility
of the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.
 
I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to
our CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road
and I feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.
 
A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has
our trust (this is of course assumed)
 
B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
difficult job and has our trust.
 
C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.
 
This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is
realistically available.  We have also accepted the CROs comittment and
balance our respect for their integrity and our concern for this election
placing more responsibility and attention on their role then usual.
 
I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss.
I suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the
influence that board has, especially in the case of elections which very
carefully a hands off affair.
--
--
Jody Garnett
 

 

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

 

 

 


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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

jody.garnett
Agreed Sanghee individuals must be respected in our organization. Venka the board has focused primarily on option (a) - so that was kind of our opinion was it not?

I understand we are stuck between two different options, a request for the board to act, and the wishes expressed here to not interfere with the CRO performing their office.




--
Jody Garnett

On 21 October 2017 at 20:49, Sanghee Shin <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think both CRO and board do not have the right not to accept the request of withdrawal from any nominees at least that is based on free will.

 

Cheers,

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

 

보낸 사람: [hidden email]
보낸 날짜: 2017 1022일 일요일 오후 12:35
받는 사람: [hidden email]
참조: [hidden email]
제목: Re: [Board] Current election cycle discussion

 

Thanks Venka, that agrees with my own understanding and thoughts.


--

Jody Garnett

 

On 21 October 2017 at 20:27, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Comments are inline.

On 10/22/2017 12:12 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:

Thanks everyone:
 
   - Maria Brovelli: A
   - Vasile Craciunescu: n/a
   - Jody Garnett: A
   - Anita Graser: -
   - Helena Mitasova: A
   - Venkatesh Raghavan: A
   - Sanghee Shin: A
   - Michael Smith: B publicly, C privately, A agree
   - Angelos Tzotsos: consider meeting with 24th hours or C
 
I also note that Maxi has made a request for the board take responsibility
and not accept Jeff's withdrawal as a candidate. Venka your email to
discuss indicated support for this idea, can you elaborate on your thinking?


It is not for the board to accept or not accept.
It is for the CRO to accept or not accept, I think.
The CRO can, perhaps announce that candidates
are not allowed to withdraw mid-way of the election
process.

Board can take responsibility to request the CRO to
make an announcement that candidates cannot withdraw
mid-way of election.

How to handle matter related to Jeff's can be taken up by the
new board after the election process in over.

Venka


 
--
Jody Garnett
 
On 21 October 2017 at 10:38, Jody Garnett [hidden email] wrote:
 
Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility
of the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.
 
I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to
our CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road
and I feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.
 
A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has
our trust (this is of course assumed)
 
B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
difficult job and has our trust.
 
C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.
 
This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is
realistically available.  We have also accepted the CROs comittment and
balance our respect for their integrity and our concern for this election
placing more responsibility and attention on their role then usual.
 
I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss.
I suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the
influence that board has, especially in the case of elections which very
carefully a hands off affair.
--
--
Jody Garnett
 

 

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

 

 

 



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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

Venkatesh Raghavan
On 10/22/2017 1:31 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Agreed Sanghee individuals must be respected in our organization. Venka the
> board has focused primarily on option (a) - so that was kind of our opinion
> was it not?
>
> I understand we are stuck between two different options, a request for the
> board to act, and the wishes expressed here to not interfere with the CRO
> performing their office.

In the elections that I have seen, there are dates specified for withdrawal
before the voting process begins. Such deadline for withdrawal was not
specified in case of the board election, since no one expected a withdrawal
at any stage.

Since the voting ballot has nine names on it and several members have
already voted using this ballot, it may not be appropriate to come up
with the
new ballot excluding the name of the candidate who has withdrawn mid-way of
voting.

So, I feel, that the best option for the CRO would be to continue with
the voting
using the present ballot. Which would mean that the request for
withdrawal is
held in abeyance by the CRO until the voting is completed.

I fully trust our CRO to take a prudent decision on this matter and
will standby CRO's decision.

My own opinion is that the request for withdrawal from nominee could be
held in abeyance by the CRO.

Venka

>
>
>
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 21 October 2017 at 20:49, Sanghee Shin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I think both CRO and board do not have the right not to accept the request
>> of withdrawal from any nominees at least that is based on free will.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> 신상희
>> ---
>> Shin, Sanghee
>> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
>> www.gaia3d.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *보낸 사람: *Jody Garnett <[hidden email]>
>> *보낸 날짜: *2017년 10월 22일 일요일 오후 12:35
>> *받는 사람: *Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]>
>> *참조: *[hidden email]
>> *제목: *Re: [Board] Current election cycle discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Venka, that agrees with my own understanding and thoughts.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21 October 2017 at 20:27, Venkatesh Raghavan <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Comments are inline.
>>
>> On 10/22/2017 12:12 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>
>> Thanks everyone:
>>
>>
>>
>>     - Maria Brovelli: A
>>
>>     - Vasile Craciunescu: n/a
>>
>>     - Jody Garnett: A
>>
>>     - Anita Graser: -
>>
>>     - Helena Mitasova: A
>>
>>     - Venkatesh Raghavan: A
>>
>>     - Sanghee Shin: A
>>
>>     - Michael Smith: B publicly, C privately, A agree
>>
>>     - Angelos Tzotsos: consider meeting with 24th hours or C
>>
>>
>>
>> I also note that Maxi has made a request for the board take responsibility
>>
>> and not accept Jeff's withdrawal as a candidate. Venka your email to
>>
>> discuss indicated support for this idea, can you elaborate on your thinking?
>>
>>
>> It is not for the board to accept or not accept.
>> It is for the CRO to accept or not accept, I think.
>> The CRO can, perhaps announce that candidates
>> are not allowed to withdraw mid-way of the election
>> process.
>>
>> Board can take responsibility to request the CRO to
>> make an announcement that candidates cannot withdraw
>> mid-way of election.
>>
>> How to handle matter related to Jeff's can be taken up by the
>> new board after the election process in over.
>>
>> Venka
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21 October 2017 at 10:38, Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
>>
>> would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility
>>
>> of the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to
>>
>> our CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road
>>
>> and I feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.
>>
>>
>>
>> A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has
>>
>> our trust (this is of course assumed)
>>
>>
>>
>> B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
>>
>> difficult job and has our trust.
>>
>>
>>
>> C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is
>>
>> realistically available.  We have also accepted the CRO’s comittment and
>>
>> balance our respect for their integrity and our concern for this election
>>
>> placing more responsibility and attention on their role then usual.
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
>>
>> subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss.
>>
>> I suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the
>>
>> influence that board has, especially in the case of elections which very
>>
>> carefully a hands off affair.
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Board mailing list
>>
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

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

Re: Current election cycle discussion

Massimiliano Cannata
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
Dear all,
To clarify I didn't intended to ask board to take action. I just wanted Jeff to go on and let who is responsible to decide if the election is regular to take action.

Maxi

Il 22 ott 2017 6:31 AM, "Jody Garnett" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
Agreed Sanghee individuals must be respected in our organization. Venka the board has focused primarily on option (a) - so that was kind of our opinion was it not?

I understand we are stuck between two different options, a request for the board to act, and the wishes expressed here to not interfere with the CRO performing their office.




--
Jody Garnett

On 21 October 2017 at 20:49, Sanghee Shin <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think both CRO and board do not have the right not to accept the request of withdrawal from any nominees at least that is based on free will.

 

Cheers,

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

 

보낸 사람: [hidden email]
보낸 날짜: 2017 1022일 일요일 오후 12:35
받는 사람: [hidden email]
참조: [hidden email]
제목: Re: [Board] Current election cycle discussion

 

Thanks Venka, that agrees with my own understanding and thoughts.


--

Jody Garnett

 

On 21 October 2017 at 20:27, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Comments are inline.

On 10/22/2017 12:12 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:

Thanks everyone:
 
   - Maria Brovelli: A
   - Vasile Craciunescu: n/a
   - Jody Garnett: A
   - Anita Graser: -
   - Helena Mitasova: A
   - Venkatesh Raghavan: A
   - Sanghee Shin: A
   - Michael Smith: B publicly, C privately, A agree
   - Angelos Tzotsos: consider meeting with 24th hours or C
 
I also note that Maxi has made a request for the board take responsibility
and not accept Jeff's withdrawal as a candidate. Venka your email to
discuss indicated support for this idea, can you elaborate on your thinking?


It is not for the board to accept or not accept.
It is for the CRO to accept or not accept, I think.
The CRO can, perhaps announce that candidates
are not allowed to withdraw mid-way of the election
process.

Board can take responsibility to request the CRO to
make an announcement that candidates cannot withdraw
mid-way of election.

How to handle matter related to Jeff's can be taken up by the
new board after the election process in over.

Venka


 
--
Jody Garnett
 
On 21 October 2017 at 10:38, Jody Garnett [hidden email] wrote:
 
Early I spoke up when I was concerned our delay on recognizing new members
would disrupt the ongoing election. This was explicitly the responsibility
of the board and I was careful to ask the CRO and follow their lead.
 
I would like to ask the board if we should extend any kind of support to
our CRO this week. This election has had hit a number of bumps on the road
and I feel bad that so much is being asked if our CRO.
 
A) Do nothing, understanding that our CRO is handling things well and has
our trust (this is of course assumed)
 
B) Explicitly state to reaffirm for our members that the CRO is doing a
difficult job and has our trust.
 
C) Ask if the CRO wishes any assistance, even if our capacity is reduced.
 
This is not that fun a discussion, and only half our board is
realistically available.  We have also accepted the CROs comittment and
balance our respect for their integrity and our concern for this election
placing more responsibility and attention on their role then usual.
 
I thought it would be better to start this email thread here, rather than
subject the CRO and board members to another round of questions on discuss.
I suspect some of the questions arise from a misunderstanding of the
influence that board has, especially in the case of elections which very
carefully a hands off affair.
--
--
Jody Garnett
 

 

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

 

 

 



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

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