Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

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

Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

John Bryant
Hi,

I received the below email a few weeks ago, regarding proposed changes to the OSGeo Oceania Terms of Reference. The original document was extensively discussed [1] and ratified [2] on the public mailing list in November and December 2018, immediately following the Melbourne conference.

I see the first Terms of Reference as the formal origin of the organisation that later became incorporated as OSGeo Oceania. To me, it represents an agreement between the board and the community, spelling out the rules of the organisation, and asking for a mandate to represent the existing community. As such, I think it's an important foundational piece and it would be good to know how it's changing.

So that we can clearly understand what is proposed, would someone from the OSGeo Oceania board be willing to provide some explanation of the changes?

Thanks
John


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: OSGeo Oceania <[hidden email]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 at 12:29
Subject: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review
To: <[hidden email]>

OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference

 
Hello OSGeo Oceania members.

The OSGeo Oceania Board has updated its Terms of Reference and is providing the draft to the community for review and comment, before finalising and ratifying them at the next board meeting. This update is Version 2.0 and is drafted to define the purpose and structure of the Board and how it operates.

All comments are due by 6th August and preferably should be made via the Oceania list, or directly in the shared documents.

You can access the two documents here:
Kind Regards,

Trisha Moriarty
Deputy Chair 



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

Re: Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

adam steer-2
Hi John

Responding as an individual board member, mainly because these requests should never sit idle for more than a few days:

Thanks for sparking a fresh ToR discussion among the board. My feeling about the changes between v1 and proposed v2 are driven by a move from 'we are setting up...'  to 'we are operating...'.

I think the most important addition is a reference to a specific code of conduct we apply to operations of both the board and things we support (the Berlin Code of Conduct [1]). Another key change is a lot less proscription about the mechanics of how conference LOCs work ( we no longer say how an LOC should organise, just that we will support...)

Personally, I could and should have definitely paid more attention to TOR alterations this past 6 months. It's nearly coming time for an election, which will put a burner under us to get over a fire-and-covid-induced languor and make sure a few things get packaged up.

Regards

Adam

[1] https://berlincodeofconduct.org/



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

Re: Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

Martin Tomko

Hi all,

I would like this discussion to not be lost, too.

I believe Trish has been looking at the update of the ToRs, cc-ing here.

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of Adam Steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 24 August 2020 at 6:27 pm
To: John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hi John

Responding as an individual board member, mainly because these requests should never sit idle for more than a few days:

Thanks for sparking a fresh ToR discussion among the board. My feeling about the changes between v1 and proposed v2 are driven by a move from 'we are setting up...'  to 'we are operating...'.

I think the most important addition is a reference to a specific code of conduct we apply to operations of both the board and things we support (the Berlin Code of Conduct [1]). Another key change is a lot less proscription about the mechanics of how conference LOCs work ( we no longer say how an LOC should organise, just that we will support...)

Personally, I could and should have definitely paid more attention to TOR alterations this past 6 months. It's nearly coming time for an election, which will put a burner under us to get over a fire-and-covid-induced languor and make sure a few things get packaged up.

Regards

Adam

[1] https://berlincodeofconduct.org/


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

Re: Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

John Bryant
Hi,

Adam has pointed out a couple of the changes, which sound positive to me. But there is another significant change I'd like to bring up, which might not be obvious.

In the "Communication" section, the new proposed Terms of Reference says:
The Board aims to operate transparently.
Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list ([hidden email]). In some cases it
may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space, for example if it relates to specific individuals
or commercial-in-confidence matters. In these cases, the person beginning a thread should state why it
should be kept private.

This is fairly similar wording to before, but this:
The board will establish a new public mailing list, where discussion and decision making will occur.
has changed to:
Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list ([hidden email]).

It isn't immediately obvious that the oceania-board list is a private list, not available to the community. The prior commitment was to discuss and decide in public by default, but it appears this has been dropped.

I find the proposed new text to be somewhat unclear in its meaning. The use of "In some cases it may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space..." sounds like it's intended to identify exceptions to the use of a public list, but as a qualifier to the use of a private channel, it doesn't really make sense.

I would dearly love to see OSGeo Oceania reaffirm its commitment to operating transparently by using a public list for discussion. In my opinion, it's an effective and efficient way for community members to stay up to date and find ways to participate, and it works passively, requiring little or no extra volunteer effort. It's a commonly used practice in OSGeo and OSM communities, we've done it successfully before, and as a community based on principles of openness, I feel it powerfully demonstrates commitment to these principles at all levels.

But if that's not possible, the text should be modified to make it clear that board discussions are held in a private space, so there can be no misunderstanding about the change.

Thanks

On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, 10:02 am Martin Tomko, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

I would like this discussion to not be lost, too.

I believe Trish has been looking at the update of the ToRs, cc-ing here.

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of Adam Steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 24 August 2020 at 6:27 pm
To: John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hi John

Responding as an individual board member, mainly because these requests should never sit idle for more than a few days:

Thanks for sparking a fresh ToR discussion among the board. My feeling about the changes between v1 and proposed v2 are driven by a move from 'we are setting up...'  to 'we are operating...'.

I think the most important addition is a reference to a specific code of conduct we apply to operations of both the board and things we support (the Berlin Code of Conduct [1]). Another key change is a lot less proscription about the mechanics of how conference LOCs work ( we no longer say how an LOC should organise, just that we will support...)

Personally, I could and should have definitely paid more attention to TOR alterations this past 6 months. It's nearly coming time for an election, which will put a burner under us to get over a fire-and-covid-induced languor and make sure a few things get packaged up.

Regards

Adam

[1] https://berlincodeofconduct.org/


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

Re: Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

Martin Tomko

Thanks John,

I agree, and will keep an eye on my part about this during the board deliberations. I also favour transparency in this – and I fear we have slipped a bit.

 

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, 3 September 2020 at 10:31 pm
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hi,

 

Adam has pointed out a couple of the changes, which sound positive to me. But there is another significant change I'd like to bring up, which might not be obvious.

 

In the "Communication" section, the new proposed Terms of Reference says:

The Board aims to operate transparently.
Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list ([hidden email]). In some cases it
may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space, for example if it relates to specific individuals
or commercial-in-confidence matters. In these cases, the person beginning a thread should state why it
should be kept private.

 

This is fairly similar wording to before, but this:

The board will establish a new public mailing list, where discussion and decision making will occur.

has changed to:

Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list ([hidden email]).

 

It isn't immediately obvious that the oceania-board list is a private list, not available to the community. The prior commitment was to discuss and decide in public by default, but it appears this has been dropped.

 

I find the proposed new text to be somewhat unclear in its meaning. The use of "In some cases it may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space..." sounds like it's intended to identify exceptions to the use of a public list, but as a qualifier to the use of a private channel, it doesn't really make sense.

 

I would dearly love to see OSGeo Oceania reaffirm its commitment to operating transparently by using a public list for discussion. In my opinion, it's an effective and efficient way for community members to stay up to date and find ways to participate, and it works passively, requiring little or no extra volunteer effort. It's a commonly used practice in OSGeo and OSM communities, we've done it successfully before, and as a community based on principles of openness, I feel it powerfully demonstrates commitment to these principles at all levels.

 

But if that's not possible, the text should be modified to make it clear that board discussions are held in a private space, so there can be no misunderstanding about the change.

 

Thanks

 

On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, 10:02 am Martin Tomko, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

I would like this discussion to not be lost, too.

I believe Trish has been looking at the update of the ToRs, cc-ing here.

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of Adam Steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 24 August 2020 at 6:27 pm
To: John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hi John

Responding as an individual board member, mainly because these requests should never sit idle for more than a few days:

Thanks for sparking a fresh ToR discussion among the board. My feeling about the changes between v1 and proposed v2 are driven by a move from 'we are setting up...'  to 'we are operating...'.

I think the most important addition is a reference to a specific code of conduct we apply to operations of both the board and things we support (the Berlin Code of Conduct [1]). Another key change is a lot less proscription about the mechanics of how conference LOCs work ( we no longer say how an LOC should organise, just that we will support...)

Personally, I could and should have definitely paid more attention to TOR alterations this past 6 months. It's nearly coming time for an election, which will put a burner under us to get over a fire-and-covid-induced languor and make sure a few things get packaged up.

Regards

Adam

[1] https://berlincodeofconduct.org/


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

Re: Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

Alex Leith
Perhaps we should change the wording to say that the Board will communicate on this Oceania list unless the matter involves confidential or other sensitive discussions, in which case they will be communicate on the oceania-board list.

I think communicating openly by default is achievable.

And obviously, holding discussions on the oceania-board list does store records for posterity, just not openly.

Would the above proposal make you comfortable, John?



On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 09:39, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks John,

I agree, and will keep an eye on my part about this during the board deliberations. I also favour transparency in this – and I fear we have slipped a bit.

 

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, 3 September 2020 at 10:31 pm
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hi,

 

Adam has pointed out a couple of the changes, which sound positive to me. But there is another significant change I'd like to bring up, which might not be obvious.

 

In the "Communication" section, the new proposed Terms of Reference says:

The Board aims to operate transparently.
Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list ([hidden email]). In some cases it
may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space, for example if it relates to specific individuals
or commercial-in-confidence matters. In these cases, the person beginning a thread should state why it
should be kept private.

 

This is fairly similar wording to before, but this:

The board will establish a new public mailing list, where discussion and decision making will occur.

has changed to:

Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list ([hidden email]).

 

It isn't immediately obvious that the oceania-board list is a private list, not available to the community. The prior commitment was to discuss and decide in public by default, but it appears this has been dropped.

 

I find the proposed new text to be somewhat unclear in its meaning. The use of "In some cases it may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space..." sounds like it's intended to identify exceptions to the use of a public list, but as a qualifier to the use of a private channel, it doesn't really make sense.

 

I would dearly love to see OSGeo Oceania reaffirm its commitment to operating transparently by using a public list for discussion. In my opinion, it's an effective and efficient way for community members to stay up to date and find ways to participate, and it works passively, requiring little or no extra volunteer effort. It's a commonly used practice in OSGeo and OSM communities, we've done it successfully before, and as a community based on principles of openness, I feel it powerfully demonstrates commitment to these principles at all levels.

 

But if that's not possible, the text should be modified to make it clear that board discussions are held in a private space, so there can be no misunderstanding about the change.

 

Thanks

 

On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, 10:02 am Martin Tomko, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

I would like this discussion to not be lost, too.

I believe Trish has been looking at the update of the ToRs, cc-ing here.

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of Adam Steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 24 August 2020 at 6:27 pm
To: John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hi John

Responding as an individual board member, mainly because these requests should never sit idle for more than a few days:

Thanks for sparking a fresh ToR discussion among the board. My feeling about the changes between v1 and proposed v2 are driven by a move from 'we are setting up...'  to 'we are operating...'.

I think the most important addition is a reference to a specific code of conduct we apply to operations of both the board and things we support (the Berlin Code of Conduct [1]). Another key change is a lot less proscription about the mechanics of how conference LOCs work ( we no longer say how an LOC should organise, just that we will support...)

Personally, I could and should have definitely paid more attention to TOR alterations this past 6 months. It's nearly coming time for an election, which will put a burner under us to get over a fire-and-covid-induced languor and make sure a few things get packaged up.

Regards

Adam

[1] https://berlincodeofconduct.org/

_______________________________________________
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: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

John Bryant
Thanks Martin & Alex, I appreciate your response. Alex, it sounds like what you're proposing is more or less a return to the spirit of the original Terms of Reference. Ultimately, I'm less concerned about what makes me comfortable personally, and more interested in a healthy and engaged open geospatial community. I think participation in discussions like this are an indicator of community health and engagement.

With that in mind, I'd be keen to hear if others in the community have feelings on this matter.

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 08:14, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps we should change the wording to say that the Board will communicate on this Oceania list unless the matter involves confidential or other sensitive discussions, in which case they will be communicate on the oceania-board list.

I think communicating openly by default is achievable.

And obviously, holding discussions on the oceania-board list does store records for posterity, just not openly.

Would the above proposal make you comfortable, John?



On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 09:39, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks John,

I agree, and will keep an eye on my part about this during the board deliberations. I also favour transparency in this – and I fear we have slipped a bit.

 

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, 3 September 2020 at 10:31 pm
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hi,

 

Adam has pointed out a couple of the changes, which sound positive to me. But there is another significant change I'd like to bring up, which might not be obvious.

 

In the "Communication" section, the new proposed Terms of Reference says:

The Board aims to operate transparently.
Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list ([hidden email]). In some cases it
may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space, for example if it relates to specific individuals
or commercial-in-confidence matters. In these cases, the person beginning a thread should state why it
should be kept private.

 

This is fairly similar wording to before, but this:

The board will establish a new public mailing list, where discussion and decision making will occur.

has changed to:

Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list ([hidden email]).

 

It isn't immediately obvious that the oceania-board list is a private list, not available to the community. The prior commitment was to discuss and decide in public by default, but it appears this has been dropped.

 

I find the proposed new text to be somewhat unclear in its meaning. The use of "In some cases it may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space..." sounds like it's intended to identify exceptions to the use of a public list, but as a qualifier to the use of a private channel, it doesn't really make sense.

 

I would dearly love to see OSGeo Oceania reaffirm its commitment to operating transparently by using a public list for discussion. In my opinion, it's an effective and efficient way for community members to stay up to date and find ways to participate, and it works passively, requiring little or no extra volunteer effort. It's a commonly used practice in OSGeo and OSM communities, we've done it successfully before, and as a community based on principles of openness, I feel it powerfully demonstrates commitment to these principles at all levels.

 

But if that's not possible, the text should be modified to make it clear that board discussions are held in a private space, so there can be no misunderstanding about the change.

 

Thanks

 

On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, 10:02 am Martin Tomko, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

I would like this discussion to not be lost, too.

I believe Trish has been looking at the update of the ToRs, cc-ing here.

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of Adam Steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 24 August 2020 at 6:27 pm
To: John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hi John

Responding as an individual board member, mainly because these requests should never sit idle for more than a few days:

Thanks for sparking a fresh ToR discussion among the board. My feeling about the changes between v1 and proposed v2 are driven by a move from 'we are setting up...'  to 'we are operating...'.

I think the most important addition is a reference to a specific code of conduct we apply to operations of both the board and things we support (the Berlin Code of Conduct [1]). Another key change is a lot less proscription about the mechanics of how conference LOCs work ( we no longer say how an LOC should organise, just that we will support...)

Personally, I could and should have definitely paid more attention to TOR alterations this past 6 months. It's nearly coming time for an election, which will put a burner under us to get over a fire-and-covid-induced languor and make sure a few things get packaged up.

Regards

Adam

[1] https://berlincodeofconduct.org/

_______________________________________________
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: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

Bruce Bannerman-3
Thanks for this John.

I agree that board discussions should be public as the rule. 

That said, there a few issues where public disclosure is not appropriate, e.g. deliberation on how to address a code of conduct violation, discussion of commercial in confidence issues such as tender responses, etc.

We have the example from our parent organisation, OSGeo, where the board list is public. If someone is interested in board issues, discussions and deliberations then they can subscribe and monitor discussions, contributing if required. They also have the board-private list for sensitive discussions.

Kind regards,

Bruce


On 4 Sep 2020, at 10:53, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks Martin & Alex, I appreciate your response. Alex, it sounds like what you're proposing is more or less a return to the spirit of the original Terms of Reference. Ultimately, I'm less concerned about what makes me comfortable personally, and more interested in a healthy and engaged open geospatial community. I think participation in discussions like this are an indicator of community health and engagement.

With that in mind, I'd be keen to hear if others in the community have feelings on this matter.

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 08:14, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps we should change the wording to say that the Board will communicate on this Oceania list unless the matter involves confidential or other sensitive discussions, in which case they will be communicate on the oceania-board list.

I think communicating openly by default is achievable.

And obviously, holding discussions on the oceania-board list does store records for posterity, just not openly.

Would the above proposal make you comfortable, John?



On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 09:39, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks John,

I agree, and will keep an eye on my part about this during the board deliberations. I also favour transparency in this – and I fear we have slipped a bit.

 

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, 3 September 2020 at 10:31 pm
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hi,

 

Adam has pointed out a couple of the changes, which sound positive to me. But there is another significant change I'd like to bring up, which might not be obvious.

 

In the "Communication" section, the new proposed Terms of Reference says:

The Board aims to operate transparently.
Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list ([hidden email]). In some cases it
may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space, for example if it relates to specific individuals
or commercial-in-confidence matters. In these cases, the person beginning a thread should state why it
should be kept private.

 

This is fairly similar wording to before, but this:

The board will establish a new public mailing list, where discussion and decision making will occur.

has changed to:

Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list ([hidden email]).

 

It isn't immediately obvious that the oceania-board list is a private list, not available to the community. The prior commitment was to discuss and decide in public by default, but it appears this has been dropped.

 

I find the proposed new text to be somewhat unclear in its meaning. The use of "In some cases it may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space..." sounds like it's intended to identify exceptions to the use of a public list, but as a qualifier to the use of a private channel, it doesn't really make sense.

 

I would dearly love to see OSGeo Oceania reaffirm its commitment to operating transparently by using a public list for discussion. In my opinion, it's an effective and efficient way for community members to stay up to date and find ways to participate, and it works passively, requiring little or no extra volunteer effort. It's a commonly used practice in OSGeo and OSM communities, we've done it successfully before, and as a community based on principles of openness, I feel it powerfully demonstrates commitment to these principles at all levels.

 

But if that's not possible, the text should be modified to make it clear that board discussions are held in a private space, so there can be no misunderstanding about the change.

 

Thanks

 

On Fri, 28 Aug 2020, 10:02 am Martin Tomko, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

I would like this discussion to not be lost, too.

I believe Trish has been looking at the update of the ToRs, cc-ing here.

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of Adam Steer <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday, 24 August 2020 at 6:27 pm
To: John Bryant <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] Fwd: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hi John

Responding as an individual board member, mainly because these requests should never sit idle for more than a few days:

Thanks for sparking a fresh ToR discussion among the board. My feeling about the changes between v1 and proposed v2 are driven by a move from 'we are setting up...'  to 'we are operating...'.

I think the most important addition is a reference to a specific code of conduct we apply to operations of both the board and things we support (the Berlin Code of Conduct [1]). Another key change is a lot less proscription about the mechanics of how conference LOCs work ( we no longer say how an LOC should organise, just that we will support...)

Personally, I could and should have definitely paid more attention to TOR alterations this past 6 months. It's nearly coming time for an election, which will put a burner under us to get over a fire-and-covid-induced languor and make sure a few things get packaged up.

Regards

Adam

[1] https://berlincodeofconduct.org/

_______________________________________________
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: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:59, Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:

We have the example from our parent organisation, OSGeo, where the board list is public. If someone is interested in board issues, discussions and deliberations then they can subscribe and monitor discussions, contributing if required. They also have the board-private list for sensitive discussions.

That's the way it should be done, with a note in the public minutes to say that a private discussion was held then till then re a "commercial-in-confidence" matter, with public discussions resuming at xxxx.

Thanks, John, for raising it, & others for your responses.

Thanks

Graeme



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

Re: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

adam steer-2
Hi everyone

I meant to respond a lot earlier to John - this discussion is reflected in current comments on that section of the draft ToR.

I don't see a reason why the draft ToR can't also be open for comment by the community. Boardfolks, can we do that? (open the draft for comment?)

And +1 to everyone - there is a strong precedent for open board comms in the OSGeo community. If the community get sick of board noise in this list, it is easy enough to set up:

- public discussion of anything by anyone (this list)
- publicly available, publicly archived, board matters list (does not exist yet, we could flick the rlevant switches on oceania-board and make it so)
- an in-camera list for the board, with very limited scope of discussion (this is how the current oceania-board list works, we could ask for a new 'oceania-board-private' list)

yes its a bit more work for board members that way to manage what goes where, but thats what we sign up for right? By nominating ourselves as drivers of the community we say 'we have time for all this'

Thanks

Adam

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 05:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:59, Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:

We have the example from our parent organisation, OSGeo, where the board list is public. If someone is interested in board issues, discussions and deliberations then they can subscribe and monitor discussions, contributing if required. They also have the board-private list for sensitive discussions.

That's the way it should be done, with a note in the public minutes to say that a private discussion was held then till then re a "commercial-in-confidence" matter, with public discussions resuming at xxxx.

Thanks, John, for raising it, & others for your responses.

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
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: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

Trisha Moriarty
Thank you for your comments and it's great to see active discussion on the draft ToR v2.0. We can certainly make the requested modifications to the Board's communication processes  and the ToR can be modified to reflect the changed practice.  

So just to confirm that  I understand the new process...

The Oceania-board list is to be made public, that is open for all community members to subscribe to. Having the dedicated board list will make it easier to track and filter conversations in our inboxes.
The board will  use the Oceania Board list for all board communications, except for those where privacy is deemed necessary. 
A new list called Ocean-board-private will be used for these conversations, ensuring they can be archived. 
We will list those circumstances in the ToR, so it is clear when the Oceania-board-private list can be used.
Currently there are two circumstances
1. code of conduct breaches
2. commercial in confidence matters
Are there any more? Do we need to be more specific with the commercial in confidence matters?

I have created a V2.1 on google drive and modified to the Communication Section to reflect the new processes mentioned above.  This is obviously still open for further suggestions and refinement of both the processes and wording.



I have also copied the newly modified text of the Communication section below for your convenience.   
 
Terms of Reference version 2.1 

Communication

The Board aims to operate transparently. 

Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list ([hidden email]) which is open for all community members to subscribe to.  In some cases it may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space if it is a sensitive matter relating to a breach in the code of conduct  or a commercial-in-confidence matter. The [hidden email] is to be used in these cases, the person beginning a thread should state why it should be kept private.

Casual/operational discussions can occur in informal channels (eg. the Maptime Oceania Slack group), with preference given to public channels where appropriate.


The email address supplied by members during the registration process will be the primary email for all ensuing communication unless advised otherwise.


Terms of Reference version 2.0 

Communication
The Board aims to operate transparently.
Board discussions are held in a dedicated mailing list ([hidden email]). In some cases it may be appropriate to hold a discussion in a private space, for example if it relates to specific individuals or commercial-in-confidence matters. In these cases, the person beginning a thread should state why it should be kept private.

Casual/operational discussions can occur in informal channels (eg. the Maptime Oceania Slack group), with preference given to public channels where appropriate.

The email address supplied by members during the registration process will be the primary email for all ensuing communication unless advised otherwise.


Trisha


On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 4:56 PM Adam Steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi everyone

I meant to respond a lot earlier to John - this discussion is reflected in current comments on that section of the draft ToR.

I don't see a reason why the draft ToR can't also be open for comment by the community. Boardfolks, can we do that? (open the draft for comment?)

And +1 to everyone - there is a strong precedent for open board comms in the OSGeo community. If the community get sick of board noise in this list, it is easy enough to set up:

- public discussion of anything by anyone (this list)
- publicly available, publicly archived, board matters list (does not exist yet, we could flick the rlevant switches on oceania-board and make it so)
- an in-camera list for the board, with very limited scope of discussion (this is how the current oceania-board list works, we could ask for a new 'oceania-board-private' list)

yes its a bit more work for board members that way to manage what goes where, but thats what we sign up for right? By nominating ourselves as drivers of the community we say 'we have time for all this'

Thanks

Adam

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 05:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:59, Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:

We have the example from our parent organisation, OSGeo, where the board list is public. If someone is interested in board issues, discussions and deliberations then they can subscribe and monitor discussions, contributing if required. They also have the board-private list for sensitive discussions.

That's the way it should be done, with a note in the public minutes to say that a private discussion was held then till then re a "commercial-in-confidence" matter, with public discussions resuming at xxxx.

Thanks, John, for raising it, & others for your responses.

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
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: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

adam steer-2
Hi Trisha

Thanks - for a board 'general business list' I reckon the ideal is 'anyone can subscribe, but only specific people can post without moderation - and all archives are open'. Mailman has plenty of power to vary a subscribers posting power as needed. We can get all these switches flicked on oceania-board easily, there's only a small task to audit the archives for anything which meets in-camera requirements.

A few OSGeo lists operate this way, including giving and taking power for unmoderated posting to individuals as required for specific discussions.

I think clear identification of the circumstances for in-camera discussion is great, thanks!

We still need to add this list as means of communication - I've added suggestions to the linked doc.

Regards,

Adam



On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 02:51, Trisha Moriarty <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thank you for your comments and it's great to see active discussion on the draft ToR v2.0. We can certainly make the requested modifications to the Board's communication processes  and the ToR can be modified to reflect the changed practice.  

So just to confirm that  I understand the new process...

The Oceania-board list is to be made public, that is open for all community members to subscribe to. Having the dedicated board list will make it easier to track and filter conversations in our inboxes.
The board will  use the Oceania Board list for all board communications, except for those where privacy is deemed necessary. 
A new list called Ocean-board-private will be used for these conversations, ensuring they can be archived. 
We will list those circumstances in the ToR, so it is clear when the Oceania-board-private list can be used.
Currently there are two circumstances
1. code of conduct breaches
2. commercial in confidence matters
Are there any more? Do we need to be more specific with the commercial in confidence matters?

I have created a V2.1 on google drive and modified to the Communication Section to reflect the new processes mentioned above.  This is obviously still open for further suggestions and refinement of both the processes and wording.


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

Re: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

Greg Lauer
Trisha - can you better define 'Board discussions'? Is this all communication between board members? Or those related to a particular decision making process?

If we are to replicate an OSgeo Board list then for it to be of any value Board and members should have read/write privileges whist community have read access only

Greg

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 6:17 PM Adam Steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Trisha

Thanks - for a board 'general business list' I reckon the ideal is 'anyone can subscribe, but only specific people can post without moderation - and all archives are open'. Mailman has plenty of power to vary a subscribers posting power as needed. We can get all these switches flicked on oceania-board easily, there's only a small task to audit the archives for anything which meets in-camera requirements.

A few OSGeo lists operate this way, including giving and taking power for unmoderated posting to individuals as required for specific discussions.

I think clear identification of the circumstances for in-camera discussion is great, thanks!

We still need to add this list as means of communication - I've added suggestions to the linked doc.

Regards,

Adam



On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 02:51, Trisha Moriarty <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thank you for your comments and it's great to see active discussion on the draft ToR v2.0. We can certainly make the requested modifications to the Board's communication processes  and the ToR can be modified to reflect the changed practice.  

So just to confirm that  I understand the new process...

The Oceania-board list is to be made public, that is open for all community members to subscribe to. Having the dedicated board list will make it easier to track and filter conversations in our inboxes.
The board will  use the Oceania Board list for all board communications, except for those where privacy is deemed necessary. 
A new list called Ocean-board-private will be used for these conversations, ensuring they can be archived. 
We will list those circumstances in the ToR, so it is clear when the Oceania-board-private list can be used.
Currently there are two circumstances
1. code of conduct breaches
2. commercial in confidence matters
Are there any more? Do we need to be more specific with the commercial in confidence matters?

I have created a V2.1 on google drive and modified to the Communication Section to reflect the new processes mentioned above.  This is obviously still open for further suggestions and refinement of both the processes and wording.

_______________________________________________
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: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

Alex Leith
Hey Folks

For simplicity, I think we should keep the current lists and start the following behaviours:
  • All OO comms that are not related to private or otherwise confidential discussions, including Board comms, go to the  oceania@ list
  • Private OO Board comms go to oceania-board@ list.
If we want to clarify that the second list should be private, I think we can change it to oceania-board-private, but I don't really want to create another list... let's keep it as simple as possible!

Cheers,

Alex

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 09:35, Greg Lauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Trisha - can you better define 'Board discussions'? Is this all communication between board members? Or those related to a particular decision making process?

If we are to replicate an OSgeo Board list then for it to be of any value Board and members should have read/write privileges whist community have read access only

Greg

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 6:17 PM Adam Steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Trisha

Thanks - for a board 'general business list' I reckon the ideal is 'anyone can subscribe, but only specific people can post without moderation - and all archives are open'. Mailman has plenty of power to vary a subscribers posting power as needed. We can get all these switches flicked on oceania-board easily, there's only a small task to audit the archives for anything which meets in-camera requirements.

A few OSGeo lists operate this way, including giving and taking power for unmoderated posting to individuals as required for specific discussions.

I think clear identification of the circumstances for in-camera discussion is great, thanks!

We still need to add this list as means of communication - I've added suggestions to the linked doc.

Regards,

Adam



On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 02:51, Trisha Moriarty <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thank you for your comments and it's great to see active discussion on the draft ToR v2.0. We can certainly make the requested modifications to the Board's communication processes  and the ToR can be modified to reflect the changed practice.  

So just to confirm that  I understand the new process...

The Oceania-board list is to be made public, that is open for all community members to subscribe to. Having the dedicated board list will make it easier to track and filter conversations in our inboxes.
The board will  use the Oceania Board list for all board communications, except for those where privacy is deemed necessary. 
A new list called Ocean-board-private will be used for these conversations, ensuring they can be archived. 
We will list those circumstances in the ToR, so it is clear when the Oceania-board-private list can be used.
Currently there are two circumstances
1. code of conduct breaches
2. commercial in confidence matters
Are there any more? Do we need to be more specific with the commercial in confidence matters?

I have created a V2.1 on google drive and modified to the Communication Section to reflect the new processes mentioned above.  This is obviously still open for further suggestions and refinement of both the processes and wording.

_______________________________________________
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: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

Martin Tomko

I would add one more thing – I believe there should be a list for the general members discussion – possibly higher traffic, but no board decision making. The main reason to set a board list at that time was to clearly differentiate business from chatter. I am aware that other means are also used ( Slack, which I am not really on), but maybe this third list would be useful. Many, myself included, would only subscribe to it as a digest, possibly weekly.

 

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of Alex Leith <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, 10 September 2020 at 9:20 am
To: Greg Lauer <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hey Folks

 

For simplicity, I think we should keep the current lists and start the following behaviours:

  • All OO comms that are not related to private or otherwise confidential discussions, including Board comms, go to the  oceania@ list
  • Private OO Board comms go to oceania-board@ list.

If we want to clarify that the second list should be private, I think we can change it to oceania-board-private, but I don't really want to create another list... let's keep it as simple as possible!

 

Cheers,


Alex

 

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 09:35, Greg Lauer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Trisha - can you better define 'Board discussions'? Is this all communication between board members? Or those related to a particular decision making process?

 

If we are to replicate an OSgeo Board list then for it to be of any value Board and members should have read/write privileges whist community have read access only

 

Greg

 

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 6:17 PM Adam Steer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Trisha

Thanks - for a board 'general business list' I reckon the ideal is 'anyone can subscribe, but only specific people can post without moderation - and all archives are open'. Mailman has plenty of power to vary a subscribers posting power as needed. We can get all these switches flicked on oceania-board easily, there's only a small task to audit the archives for anything which meets in-camera requirements.

A few OSGeo lists operate this way, including giving and taking power for unmoderated posting to individuals as required for specific discussions.

I think clear identification of the circumstances for in-camera discussion is great, thanks!

We still need to add this list as means of communication - I've added suggestions to the linked doc.

Regards,

Adam

 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 02:51, Trisha Moriarty <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thank you for your comments and it's great to see active discussion on the draft ToR v2.0. We can certainly make the requested modifications to the Board's communication processes  and the ToR can be modified to reflect the changed practice.  

 

So just to confirm that  I understand the new process...

 

The Oceania-board list is to be made public, that is open for all community members to subscribe to. Having the dedicated board list will make it easier to track and filter conversations in our inboxes.

The board will  use the Oceania Board list for all board communications, except for those where privacy is deemed necessary. 

A new list called Ocean-board-private will be used for these conversations, ensuring they can be archived. 

We will list those circumstances in the ToR, so it is clear when the Oceania-board-private list can be used.

Currently there are two circumstances

1. code of conduct breaches

2. commercial in confidence matters

Are there any more? Do we need to be more specific with the commercial in confidence matters?

 

I have created a V2.1 on google drive and modified to the Communication Section to reflect the new processes mentioned above.  This is obviously still open for further suggestions and refinement of both the processes and wording.

 

_______________________________________________
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: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

John Bryant
I agree with the idea of separating "discussion about board business" from "general community discussion" in two separate public lists, to avoid overwhelming the community list. I suggest this list (oceania) be kept for community discussion - it was initially set up in January 2007 for this purpose [1], and it seems better to keep it that way for continuity.



On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 08:47, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would add one more thing – I believe there should be a list for the general members discussion – possibly higher traffic, but no board decision making. The main reason to set a board list at that time was to clearly differentiate business from chatter. I am aware that other means are also used ( Slack, which I am not really on), but maybe this third list would be useful. Many, myself included, would only subscribe to it as a digest, possibly weekly.

 

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of Alex Leith <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, 10 September 2020 at 9:20 am
To: Greg Lauer <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hey Folks

 

For simplicity, I think we should keep the current lists and start the following behaviours:

  • All OO comms that are not related to private or otherwise confidential discussions, including Board comms, go to the  oceania@ list
  • Private OO Board comms go to oceania-board@ list.

If we want to clarify that the second list should be private, I think we can change it to oceania-board-private, but I don't really want to create another list... let's keep it as simple as possible!

 

Cheers,


Alex

 

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 09:35, Greg Lauer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Trisha - can you better define 'Board discussions'? Is this all communication between board members? Or those related to a particular decision making process?

 

If we are to replicate an OSgeo Board list then for it to be of any value Board and members should have read/write privileges whist community have read access only

 

Greg

 

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 6:17 PM Adam Steer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Trisha

Thanks - for a board 'general business list' I reckon the ideal is 'anyone can subscribe, but only specific people can post without moderation - and all archives are open'. Mailman has plenty of power to vary a subscribers posting power as needed. We can get all these switches flicked on oceania-board easily, there's only a small task to audit the archives for anything which meets in-camera requirements.

A few OSGeo lists operate this way, including giving and taking power for unmoderated posting to individuals as required for specific discussions.

I think clear identification of the circumstances for in-camera discussion is great, thanks!

We still need to add this list as means of communication - I've added suggestions to the linked doc.

Regards,

Adam

 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 02:51, Trisha Moriarty <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thank you for your comments and it's great to see active discussion on the draft ToR v2.0. We can certainly make the requested modifications to the Board's communication processes  and the ToR can be modified to reflect the changed practice.  

 

So just to confirm that  I understand the new process...

 

The Oceania-board list is to be made public, that is open for all community members to subscribe to. Having the dedicated board list will make it easier to track and filter conversations in our inboxes.

The board will  use the Oceania Board list for all board communications, except for those where privacy is deemed necessary. 

A new list called Ocean-board-private will be used for these conversations, ensuring they can be archived. 

We will list those circumstances in the ToR, so it is clear when the Oceania-board-private list can be used.

Currently there are two circumstances

1. code of conduct breaches

2. commercial in confidence matters

Are there any more? Do we need to be more specific with the commercial in confidence matters?

 

I have created a V2.1 on google drive and modified to the Communication Section to reflect the new processes mentioned above.  This is obviously still open for further suggestions and refinement of both the processes and wording.

 

_______________________________________________
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: OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

Alex Leith
My only issue with another list is that I'm the only one who triages the spam, and it wears me down! haha 

But hey, what's another list on the list ;-) 

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 11:40, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree with the idea of separating "discussion about board business" from "general community discussion" in two separate public lists, to avoid overwhelming the community list. I suggest this list (oceania) be kept for community discussion - it was initially set up in January 2007 for this purpose [1], and it seems better to keep it that way for continuity.



On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 08:47, Martin Tomko <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would add one more thing – I believe there should be a list for the general members discussion – possibly higher traffic, but no board decision making. The main reason to set a board list at that time was to clearly differentiate business from chatter. I am aware that other means are also used ( Slack, which I am not really on), but maybe this third list would be useful. Many, myself included, would only subscribe to it as a digest, possibly weekly.

 

Martin

 

From: Oceania <[hidden email]> on behalf of Alex Leith <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, 10 September 2020 at 9:20 am
To: Greg Lauer <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Oceania] OSGeo Oceania Board Terms of Reference Update for Review

 

Hey Folks

 

For simplicity, I think we should keep the current lists and start the following behaviours:

  • All OO comms that are not related to private or otherwise confidential discussions, including Board comms, go to the  oceania@ list
  • Private OO Board comms go to oceania-board@ list.

If we want to clarify that the second list should be private, I think we can change it to oceania-board-private, but I don't really want to create another list... let's keep it as simple as possible!

 

Cheers,


Alex

 

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 09:35, Greg Lauer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Trisha - can you better define 'Board discussions'? Is this all communication between board members? Or those related to a particular decision making process?

 

If we are to replicate an OSgeo Board list then for it to be of any value Board and members should have read/write privileges whist community have read access only

 

Greg

 

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 6:17 PM Adam Steer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Trisha

Thanks - for a board 'general business list' I reckon the ideal is 'anyone can subscribe, but only specific people can post without moderation - and all archives are open'. Mailman has plenty of power to vary a subscribers posting power as needed. We can get all these switches flicked on oceania-board easily, there's only a small task to audit the archives for anything which meets in-camera requirements.

A few OSGeo lists operate this way, including giving and taking power for unmoderated posting to individuals as required for specific discussions.

I think clear identification of the circumstances for in-camera discussion is great, thanks!

We still need to add this list as means of communication - I've added suggestions to the linked doc.

Regards,

Adam

 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 02:51, Trisha Moriarty <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thank you for your comments and it's great to see active discussion on the draft ToR v2.0. We can certainly make the requested modifications to the Board's communication processes  and the ToR can be modified to reflect the changed practice.  

 

So just to confirm that  I understand the new process...

 

The Oceania-board list is to be made public, that is open for all community members to subscribe to. Having the dedicated board list will make it easier to track and filter conversations in our inboxes.

The board will  use the Oceania Board list for all board communications, except for those where privacy is deemed necessary. 

A new list called Ocean-board-private will be used for these conversations, ensuring they can be archived. 

We will list those circumstances in the ToR, so it is clear when the Oceania-board-private list can be used.

Currently there are two circumstances

1. code of conduct breaches

2. commercial in confidence matters

Are there any more? Do we need to be more specific with the commercial in confidence matters?

 

I have created a V2.1 on google drive and modified to the Communication Section to reflect the new processes mentioned above.  This is obviously still open for further suggestions and refinement of both the processes and wording.

 

_______________________________________________
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