membership - elections - AGM

Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
72 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

membership - elections - AGM

John Bryant
Hi all,

I'd like to kick off a discussion around membership of OSGeo Oceania, and how we elect directors to the board. We don't need to rush, but should move with purpose, so we can complete our mandate, and an incoming board of directors can begin with a solid foundation. Let's aim to get through as much of this as we can in the next couple of weeks, to have time to make arrangements ahead of the conference rush.

For background, in our Terms of Reference, we agreed to get this done in 2019:
  • determine a process for recruiting and managing an appropriate general membership
  • determine a process for renewal of board membership, including accountability to the general membership, and clarify such items as term limits and staggering of terms
I think these are the key questions we need to answer:
  1. Membership: We need to recruit a membership who will vote on a board of directors, and maintain a register of these members. How do we do it? What are the rights & obligations of members? Do we charge a small annual fee?
  2. Elections: When will these be held? How do we run them? Do we appoint a CRO?
Regarding timing, I would see us holding our AGM at the conference, but holding elections in the weeks following. I previously thought it might make sense to have the elections at the AGM, but on reflection I realise that would exclude people who aren't attending the conference from participating, and we should be looking to the wider community.

We have some financial support from OSGeo for seeking professional advice/assistance, so let's consider what questions we need answered by the pros. We may need to look at updating our constitution and our Terms of Reference.

Thoughts?

Cheers
John


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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

Cameron Shorter
I think our membership process should be inclusive and easy to join by anyone interested in OSGeo Oceania, with the one caveat that we should protect ourselves from being overtaken by being swamped by bad actors.

With that in mind, I suggest starting from the OSGeo charter member process, which aimed to achieve these goals and I think it pretty close to what we want.

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 13:58, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I'd like to kick off a discussion around membership of OSGeo Oceania, and how we elect directors to the board. We don't need to rush, but should move with purpose, so we can complete our mandate, and an incoming board of directors can begin with a solid foundation. Let's aim to get through as much of this as we can in the next couple of weeks, to have time to make arrangements ahead of the conference rush.

For background, in our Terms of Reference, we agreed to get this done in 2019:
  • determine a process for recruiting and managing an appropriate general membership
  • determine a process for renewal of board membership, including accountability to the general membership, and clarify such items as term limits and staggering of terms
I think these are the key questions we need to answer:
  1. Membership: We need to recruit a membership who will vote on a board of directors, and maintain a register of these members. How do we do it? What are the rights & obligations of members? Do we charge a small annual fee?
  2. Elections: When will these be held? How do we run them? Do we appoint a CRO?
Regarding timing, I would see us holding our AGM at the conference, but holding elections in the weeks following. I previously thought it might make sense to have the elections at the AGM, but on reflection I realise that would exclude people who aren't attending the conference from participating, and we should be looking to the wider community.

We have some financial support from OSGeo for seeking professional advice/assistance, so let's consider what questions we need answered by the pros. We may need to look at updating our constitution and our Terms of Reference.

Thoughts?

Cheers
John

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


--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254




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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

John Bryant
Thanks Cameron

>I think our membership process should be inclusive and easy to join by anyone interested in OSGeo Oceania, with the one caveat that we should protect ourselves from being overtaken by being swamped by bad actors.
+1

>I suggest starting from the OSGeo charter member process
I like the OSGeo Charter Member model, as it aims for gradual growth based on established trust. I'd be a bit concerned that some might feel excluded if they're not already in established networks, but there could be ways to mitigate this.

A couple of questions on this model:
  1. I can see how it works well once established, but how might it work initially? Would we suggest that interested people ask to be nominated? Would they need to explain why they should be a member?
  2. How to keep membership list fresh? Maybe if a member doesn't fulfill their duties (eg. doesn't vote for 2 or 3 consecutive years), their membership is suspended?

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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

Cameron Shorter


On 4/9/19 6:32 pm, John Bryant wrote:
A couple of questions on this model:
  1. I can see how it works well once established, but how might it work initially? Would we suggest that interested people ask to be nominated? Would they need to explain why they should be a member?

Point people at the "Positive attributes" which basically means active participation.

https://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Membership_Process_2018&redirect=no 

If someone is actively participating on a volunteer basis, they are almost certainly have the best interests of OSGeo at hand. This should be enough criteria to join.

  1. How to keep membership list fresh? Maybe if a member doesn't fulfill their duties (eg. doesn't vote for 2 or 3 consecutive years), their membership is suspended?

OSGeo has half heartedly tried to remove inactive people in the past. It hasn't worked very well. There are lots of inactive people as OSGeo charter members, but that doesn't really matter.

It only becomes an issue if we set a criteria that x % of members need to vote.


-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

John Bryant
Using 'positive attributes' makes sense to me.

>It only becomes an issue if we set a criteria that x % of members need to vote.
Typically a public entity's constitution will require quorum for certain actions, ours [1] states that we need 20% of membership present to run a General Meeting. For this reason, I'm in favour of some kind of (simple) mechanism for keeping the list somewhat current.

Alternatively, we could seek to modify our constitution (and this may be desirable to make sure it's in accord with our community standards).



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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

Cameron Shorter
I'm +1 for a membership removal process. (We have/had one for OSGeo, along the lines of "if you don't vote in elections, then you will be asked if you want to stay. If you don't want to stay, or you don't response, or you continue to not vote, then you will be removed").

On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 22:18, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Using 'positive attributes' makes sense to me.

>It only becomes an issue if we set a criteria that x % of members need to vote.
Typically a public entity's constitution will require quorum for certain actions, ours [1] states that we need 20% of membership present to run a General Meeting. For this reason, I'm in favour of some kind of (simple) mechanism for keeping the list somewhat current.

Alternatively, we could seek to modify our constitution (and this may be desirable to make sure it's in accord with our community standards).


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


--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254




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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

adam steer-2
HI John

I also like the OSGeo process for charter members, and an ability to prune members with a clear minimum participation level, as in anyone who did note vote or return an apology is gone. Which might seem pretty harsh, but once a year reading some summaries and ticking a box is pretty low bandwidth.

We need to resolve paid membership first - the constitution is ok with either free or paid membership. I think the OSGeo system works in part because it's free. 

By contrast in OSMF, I just paid them money and I can vote. If I stop paying, I can’t vote anymore - so it's a different model. And also ok. 

I think the first (OSGeo) approach mitigates the risk of being overrun by interest groups. If we want to mix that with paid membership, I think we will have to get people to nominate themselves as members - so that would end with money plus a ‘positive attributes’ qualifier being two bars to cross.

I think we need one, or the other - we can’t do both. I prefer membership remaining free (like OSGeo), with a clearer boundary around what the conditions are (less clear in OSGeo, much more clear for OSMF).

As OSGeo Oceania grows, it’s probably necessary to adjust the constitution to have a ’no veto’ approach to voting on board members and new members, rather than quotas or numbers. I wonder if that’s possible?

Sorry, bit of an essay - trying to unpack tangled thoughts.

Cheers


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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

Alex Leith
Hi All

Perhaps free membership that requires an action each year to remain a member, even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial?

I'm not sure what the risk of being swamped by bad actors is... is it something that has happened to other OSGeo groups?

I think having elections as part of the AGM is a better idea. We can ensure that we have some kind of system enabled for remote access.

And I don't think we need a CRO for the elections, just a sound an equitable system that we're pretty good at pulling together usually.

Cheers,

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 12:28, adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
HI John

I also like the OSGeo process for charter members, and an ability to prune members with a clear minimum participation level, as in anyone who did note vote or return an apology is gone. Which might seem pretty harsh, but once a year reading some summaries and ticking a box is pretty low bandwidth.

We need to resolve paid membership first - the constitution is ok with either free or paid membership. I think the OSGeo system works in part because it's free. 

By contrast in OSMF, I just paid them money and I can vote. If I stop paying, I can’t vote anymore - so it's a different model. And also ok. 

I think the first (OSGeo) approach mitigates the risk of being overrun by interest groups. If we want to mix that with paid membership, I think we will have to get people to nominate themselves as members - so that would end with money plus a ‘positive attributes’ qualifier being two bars to cross.

I think we need one, or the other - we can’t do both. I prefer membership remaining free (like OSGeo), with a clearer boundary around what the conditions are (less clear in OSGeo, much more clear for OSMF).

As OSGeo Oceania grows, it’s probably necessary to adjust the constitution to have a ’no veto’ approach to voting on board members and new members, rather than quotas or numbers. I wonder if that’s possible?

Sorry, bit of an essay - trying to unpack tangled thoughts.

Cheers

_______________________________________________
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: membership - elections - AGM

Andrew Harvey-2

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 20:08, Alex Leith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm not sure what the risk of being swamped by bad actors is... is it something that has happened to other OSGeo groups?

Recently there was a coordinated effort by one company to mass sign up members to the OSMF which raised some eyebrows: https://openstreetmap.lu/MWGGlobalLogicReport20181226.pdf
 

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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Alex Leith

On 5/9/19 8:08 pm, Alex Leith wrote:
> Perhaps free membership that requires an action each year to remain a
> member, even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial?
I'd be inclined to describe it in moral terms. "Contribute in some
meaningful way. Contributing to an email discussion is considered
valuable and meaningful. There are lots of other ways as well."
>
> I'm not sure what the risk of being swamped by bad actors is... is it
> something that has happened to other OSGeo groups?
It hasn't happened to OSGeo. It was considered when OSGeo was setting up
and drawing on best practices from prior Open Source Foundation
experiences. I
>
> I think having elections as part of the AGM is a better idea. We can
> ensure that we have some kind of system enabled for remote access.
Fine
>
> And I don't think we need a CRO for the elections, just a sound an
> equitable system that we're pretty good at pulling together usually.
I agree. There are online voting tools which can do a better job than a CRO.

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

John Bryant
In reply to this post by Andrew Harvey-2
>I think having elections as part of the AGM is a better idea. We can ensure that we have some kind of system enabled for remote access.

My strong preference for elections after the AGM, rather than during, is based on a few things:
- The conference is a great opportunity to inform and engage people, and capture their imaginations. If we run the election after the conf, we can use this effect to recruit new candidates. Conversely, if it's at the AGM, the only candidates may be those who are already aware of OO and know enough to commit to standing for election, we may have a significantly smaller pool.
- A live election at the AGM would provide an advantage to candidates who are physically present. I expect there will be people who can't attend but would be excellent board members. I'd like these people to have equal opportunity.
A live election would provide an advantage to candidates who are comfortable standing on a stage and selling themselves. I would like to see people take their time to consider why they want to serve on the board, and articulate it in writing, and give voting members time to consider and digest the candidates' positions before voting.
- I don't like the idea of holding the election in the middle of the conference. To me it feels like an unwelcome distraction from the joy of a high energy event. Also, changing the board in the middle of the big event could be awkward and maybe chaotic.

Using the conference and AGM to drive engagement, and running the election shortly thereafter, will give us a bigger (and arguably better) pool of potential candidates, and give us the breathing room to focus on the election properly, at a measured pace.

I also note that OSGeo doesn't run the elections at the AGM, though I don't know the reason for this.

What are the advantages of having the election at the AGM?

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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

John Bryant
In the interest of moving this forward, perhaps we can focus on the membership question for now.

So far we have a couple of suggestions on the table:
  1. a model somewhat based on OSGeo's charter membership, using participation and positive attributes as criteria for nomination
  2. free membership that requires an action each year to remain a member, even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial
Option 1 has featured more heavily in this discussion, am I right to read that as having general support? Any arguments against? Any other proposals we should consider?

If we have general support for option 1, let's start fleshing it out. I've started a Google doc [1] for collaborative editing, we can move this to the wiki when it's done. It's open for commenting, if you want to help edit, please ask for access.

Board & community input please.

Cheers
John


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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

Edoardo Neerhut
Hi all,

Thanks for moving the discussion forward on this important topic.

Membership criteria
Regarding the membership base and how one qualifies, I broadly agree that we need a system that encourages active participation. My only concern is around the idea of "positive attributes". The term itself seems a bit ambiguous and even the selection criteria outlined in the linked OSGeo wiki seem a bit too vague for my liking. I think a system like this is vulnerable to manipulation and not as merit based as we would like.

OSMF is at the other end of the spectrum with a membership fee but no responsibilities. 

As we are in the early days of our community, I think we would benefit greatly from having a more open membership criteria, but with clear obligations once a member, even if this was simply voting each year. My worry that a more selective criteria with "positive attributes" might discourage new people from joining and limit future leadership potential. 

Timing of the election
Similarly, I agree with John and Cameron that an AGM at the conference followed by an election shortly would allow new people to step up and do so after due consideration. The date of the election should be fixed well in advance so that people consider it seriously at the AGM and conference and initiate any discussions they may want to have regarding the responsibilities of membership and directorship.

Also:
  • As John mentioned, having the election during the conference unfairly disadvantages those unable to attend.
  • Elections can be both a positive and negative event depending on how they play out. We should reduce the risk of any negative fallout by separating the two events.
I'll need to put more thought into the actual running of the election. It might be useful to have someone from OSMF or OSGeo join one of our board meetings and shed light on how they run theirs.

Cheers,

Ed 


On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 06:40, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
In the interest of moving this forward, perhaps we can focus on the membership question for now.

So far we have a couple of suggestions on the table:
  1. a model somewhat based on OSGeo's charter membership, using participation and positive attributes as criteria for nomination
  2. free membership that requires an action each year to remain a member, even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial
Option 1 has featured more heavily in this discussion, am I right to read that as having general support? Any arguments against? Any other proposals we should consider?

If we have general support for option 1, let's start fleshing it out. I've started a Google doc [1] for collaborative editing, we can move this to the wiki when it's done. It's open for commenting, if you want to help edit, please ask for access.

Board & community input please.

Cheers
John

_______________________________________________
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: membership - elections - AGM

Jonah Sullivan
Thanks for taking the time to think about this Ed. I think being inclusive is a great idea, but I don't see much benefit of having a large but disengaged member pool.

I haven't put any thought into charging membership dues, not sure if it would be worth the administrative hassle since the organisation is based around the conference.

On Sun, 8 Sep. 2019, 13:54 Edoardo Neerhut, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for moving the discussion forward on this important topic.

Membership criteria
Regarding the membership base and how one qualifies, I broadly agree that we need a system that encourages active participation. My only concern is around the idea of "positive attributes". The term itself seems a bit ambiguous and even the selection criteria outlined in the linked OSGeo wiki seem a bit too vague for my liking. I think a system like this is vulnerable to manipulation and not as merit based as we would like.

OSMF is at the other end of the spectrum with a membership fee but no responsibilities. 

As we are in the early days of our community, I think we would benefit greatly from having a more open membership criteria, but with clear obligations once a member, even if this was simply voting each year. My worry that a more selective criteria with "positive attributes" might discourage new people from joining and limit future leadership potential. 

Timing of the election
Similarly, I agree with John and Cameron that an AGM at the conference followed by an election shortly would allow new people to step up and do so after due consideration. The date of the election should be fixed well in advance so that people consider it seriously at the AGM and conference and initiate any discussions they may want to have regarding the responsibilities of membership and directorship.

Also:
  • As John mentioned, having the election during the conference unfairly disadvantages those unable to attend.
  • Elections can be both a positive and negative event depending on how they play out. We should reduce the risk of any negative fallout by separating the two events.
I'll need to put more thought into the actual running of the election. It might be useful to have someone from OSMF or OSGeo join one of our board meetings and shed light on how they run theirs.

Cheers,

Ed 


On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 06:40, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
In the interest of moving this forward, perhaps we can focus on the membership question for now.

So far we have a couple of suggestions on the table:
  1. a model somewhat based on OSGeo's charter membership, using participation and positive attributes as criteria for nomination
  2. free membership that requires an action each year to remain a member, even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial
Option 1 has featured more heavily in this discussion, am I right to read that as having general support? Any arguments against? Any other proposals we should consider?

If we have general support for option 1, let's start fleshing it out. I've started a Google doc [1] for collaborative editing, we can move this to the wiki when it's done. It's open for commenting, if you want to help edit, please ask for access.

Board & community input please.

Cheers
John

_______________________________________________
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: membership - elections - AGM

adam steer-2
Hi all

Ed has pretty well summed up my thoughts. My preferred action would be 'vote in an election'.

We can do things like charter membership later...

And +1 to elections outside the AGM.

Thanks all,

Adam

On Mon., 9 Sep. 2019, 13:30 Jonah Sullivan, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to think about this Ed. I think being inclusive is a great idea, but I don't see much benefit of having a large but disengaged member pool.

I haven't put any thought into charging membership dues, not sure if it would be worth the administrative hassle since the organisation is based around the conference.

On Sun, 8 Sep. 2019, 13:54 Edoardo Neerhut, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for moving the discussion forward on this important topic.

Membership criteria
Regarding the membership base and how one qualifies, I broadly agree that we need a system that encourages active participation. My only concern is around the idea of "positive attributes". The term itself seems a bit ambiguous and even the selection criteria outlined in the linked OSGeo wiki seem a bit too vague for my liking. I think a system like this is vulnerable to manipulation and not as merit based as we would like.

OSMF is at the other end of the spectrum with a membership fee but no responsibilities. 

As we are in the early days of our community, I think we would benefit greatly from having a more open membership criteria, but with clear obligations once a member, even if this was simply voting each year. My worry that a more selective criteria with "positive attributes" might discourage new people from joining and limit future leadership potential. 

Timing of the election
Similarly, I agree with John and Cameron that an AGM at the conference followed by an election shortly would allow new people to step up and do so after due consideration. The date of the election should be fixed well in advance so that people consider it seriously at the AGM and conference and initiate any discussions they may want to have regarding the responsibilities of membership and directorship.

Also:
  • As John mentioned, having the election during the conference unfairly disadvantages those unable to attend.
  • Elections can be both a positive and negative event depending on how they play out. We should reduce the risk of any negative fallout by separating the two events.
I'll need to put more thought into the actual running of the election. It might be useful to have someone from OSMF or OSGeo join one of our board meetings and shed light on how they run theirs.

Cheers,

Ed 


On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 06:40, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
In the interest of moving this forward, perhaps we can focus on the membership question for now.

So far we have a couple of suggestions on the table:
  1. a model somewhat based on OSGeo's charter membership, using participation and positive attributes as criteria for nomination
  2. free membership that requires an action each year to remain a member, even if it's clicking a link in an email or something trivial
Option 1 has featured more heavily in this discussion, am I right to read that as having general support? Any arguments against? Any other proposals we should consider?

If we have general support for option 1, let's start fleshing it out. I've started a Google doc [1] for collaborative editing, we can move this to the wiki when it's done. It's open for commenting, if you want to help edit, please ask for access.

Board & community input please.

Cheers
John

_______________________________________________
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

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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

John Bryant
Hi all, time to steer this membership discussion to completion. At last Thursday's board meeting, and in subsequent discussion, it was suggested to frame this as a policy the board can adopt, with an aim to having it finished by next week.

The draft membership policy doc [1] is getting pretty close, but needs some wordsmithing, a review (re-write?) of the "positive attributes" section, and there are likely a few points yet to discuss.

I've highlighted a couple:
  • are we happy with a 2-tier membership - one that consists of a self-identified cohort of people, with a low barrier to entry, and no particular rights & responsibilities; and one that has a slightly higher threshold (ie nomination & positive attributes), and includes a few rights & responsibilities?
  • how do we establish our initial charter membership (or whatever we call it)? board plus 2018 & 2019 conference committees? add people who we know are contributors? canvass for nominations from the community?
I'll find some time over the next couple of days to do some wordsmithing, if anyone else wishes to help with this, feel free. Comments and discussion encouraged in this thread and in the doc.

I propose this approximate timeline:
  • Sunday 22nd: finish draft
  • Monday 23rd: review by our professional advisers to ensure we're not doing anything that is difficult to implement, and to help us understand whether it will require changes to our constitution
  • Tuesday 24th: motion to adopt
Cheers
John


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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

John Bryant
At the last board meeting, we talked about reviewing the "Positive Attributes" concept from OSGeo, and re-articulating something along the same lines for our community. Here's the OSGeo passage, any thoughts? Comments & suggestions welcome.

Recommended membership selection criteria include:
  • Members should believe in the general goals of the Foundation. To support and promote the use of free and open source geospatial software, education and data in a collaborative manner.
  • Previous participation in or support of OSGeo activities
  • The person should already have made a contribution to free and open source geospatial software, education or open data.
  • The person should be willing to put in time and effort on the Foundation, perhaps joining committee(s), or volunteering in some other way that gets the Foundation going.
  • Members should be prepared to work constructively and positively towards the goals of the Foundation. Good teamwork skills are an asset.
Membership nominations should strive to promote diversity:
  • Nominate members representing a diversity of geographic regions, diversity of projects, diversity of programming languages.
  • Nominate members representing and diversity of interests (e.g., corporate, hobbyist, educational, scientific).
  • Nominate members representing a diversity of humanity including gender and race

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 14:55, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all, time to steer this membership discussion to completion. At last Thursday's board meeting, and in subsequent discussion, it was suggested to frame this as a policy the board can adopt, with an aim to having it finished by next week.

The draft membership policy doc [1] is getting pretty close, but needs some wordsmithing, a review (re-write?) of the "positive attributes" section, and there are likely a few points yet to discuss.

I've highlighted a couple:
  • are we happy with a 2-tier membership - one that consists of a self-identified cohort of people, with a low barrier to entry, and no particular rights & responsibilities; and one that has a slightly higher threshold (ie nomination & positive attributes), and includes a few rights & responsibilities?
  • how do we establish our initial charter membership (or whatever we call it)? board plus 2018 & 2019 conference committees? add people who we know are contributors? canvass for nominations from the community?
I'll find some time over the next couple of days to do some wordsmithing, if anyone else wishes to help with this, feel free. Comments and discussion encouraged in this thread and in the doc.

I propose this approximate timeline:
  • Sunday 22nd: finish draft
  • Monday 23rd: review by our professional advisers to ensure we're not doing anything that is difficult to implement, and to help us understand whether it will require changes to our constitution
  • Tuesday 24th: motion to adopt
Cheers
John


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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

John Bryant
OK, we have a near-complete draft of a Membership Policy ready for review [1]. Board & community, please have a look and consider whether it works for you.

There may still be some question marks around things like:
  • are we happy with the term "charter member"?
  • are we happy with the eligibility criteria?
  • are we happy with the two types of membership?
  • is the 2019 process for an initial membership reasonable and fair?
  • does it read well, it is clear, and is it practically implementable?
  • does it cover what it needs to?
Please raise any last issues you think need resolving. Meanwhile, I'll send it over to our professional advisors for review. If there are no outstanding items by Tuesday I'll aim to move it for adoption then.

Cheers
John



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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

Cameron Shorter

John,

I've added plenty of comments into the doc. Sorry for the late feedback. Answers to questions below:

On 21/9/19 11:31 pm, John Bryant wrote:
OK, we have a near-complete draft of a Membership Policy ready for review [1]. Board & community, please have a look and consider whether it works for you.

There may still be some question marks around things like:
  • are we happy with the term "charter member"?
  • are we happy with the eligibility criteria?
I suggest reducing barrier to entry to be as little as "contributing to an email list".
  • are we happy with the two types of membership?
I think this adds complexity and confusion which I feel will be detrimental.
  • is the 2019 process for an initial membership reasonable and fair?
Yes.
  • does it read well, it is clear,
Yes, great job.
  • and is it practically implementable?
I've listed concerns about adding members.
  • does it cover what it needs to?
Yes.
Please raise any last issues you think need resolving. Meanwhile, I'll send it over to our professional advisors for review. If there are no outstanding items by Tuesday I'll aim to move it for adoption then.

Cheers
John



_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

John Bryant
Thanks a lot Cameron, Adam, Ed, & Greg (and Anonymous :) ) for extensive review & input.

There are a couple of big questions we need to address (and they're inextricably linked, so let's discuss them in tandem):

1. Will we have 2 tiers of membership, ie. general and charter?
The 2 tier idea was proposed as a way to ensure there is a low barrier to entry for all, but that we also have a means of ensuring that voting members meet some basic eligibility guidelines, partly to protect the organisation from bad actors. However, there are legitimate concerns about adding complexity and confusion. The alternative is to have a single type of membership, in which we'd need to balance low barrier and eligibility.

... which leads to ...

2. What is our eligibility criteria?
The threshold was initially proposed as active volunteering, with reference to the OSGeo charter member "positive attributes". After a bit of discussion at last week's board meeting, we agreed to try and re-articulate these for our particular situation. But there are some legitimate concerns that they may be too high a bar. The resolution of the two-tiers question will play into this.

I need some help in resolving these questions, can I get some feedback? What are your thoughts? Board, you'll be asked to pass this once it's complete, what are your thoughts on these questions?

There are also a number of practical considerations being discussed in the draft document [1], these are worth looking at as well.

Thanks
John


_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
1234