membership - elections - AGM

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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

Duncan Jackson-2
+1

Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily extend it with some process whereby people in the community can self-identify as a "community member", or "citizen", or something like that. But there is much to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we really need to stay focused on that which must be done.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 18:14, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all, really pleased to see all this input, thanks for your time & energy.

This is obviously a topic that people feel strongly about, which is great. I feel that we're all aligned on the key principles: that we want to make the organisation accessible to new members, and we want it to be run responsibly, ie. members should be able to influence how it's run. There's a bit of distance between the various proposals on the table so far, but they're all aiming at these principles. To make progress, it looks like we're going to need to make some compromises.

I fully agree with Edoardo's reasoning for preferring a home-grown approach to membership. We're an OSGeo local chapter, but we're also more than that, notably (as Ed mentioned) we're in the process of applying to be a local chapter of OSMF as well. We need to ensure we wholeheartedly embrace the parts of our community that don't fall under the OSGeo umbrella.

I think we're roughly all on the same page re: voting membership, ie. we need members who vote, and they should pass some sort of eligibility threshold.

The key point of disagreement seems to be whether we have a 2nd tier of membership with a lower eligibility threshold, one where anyone can join, but there are no rights/responsibilities associated with it. There have been some questions asked about what real value this provides to such a member and to the organisation, which I struggle to answer. I'm also concerned about the extra messaging that would be required to communicate this to the community to overcome any potential confusion... this translates to work, and as a volunteer-run organisation, our time & energy have limits. Finally, I don't see that the eligibility threshold we're considering for membership is so high that it functionally excludes anyone who truly wants to be a part of this.

I strongly identify with the value proposition of making the organisation accessible to everyone though, so this is difficult for me...

But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this question: Can we live with a single membership type for now, which includes voting privileges?

I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our key priorities (voting membership, protect the org).

Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily extend it with some process whereby people in the community can self-identify as a "community member", or "citizen", or something like that. But there is much to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we really need to stay focused on that which must be done.

Something needs to give, so I'm hoping for some compromise.

Thanks
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

Robert Coup
In reply to this post by John Bryant
Hi John,

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:44, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:

But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this question: Can we live with a single membership type for now, which includes voting privileges?

I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our key priorities (voting membership, protect the org).

+1 on Single Tier. 

IMO if protection is really necessary, it could be as simple as "only people who have been members for 3mo+ can vote". If there's some sudden influx then the org has 3 months to change the rules/sort it out. eg. InternetNZ has this (S3.6). Limiting officers to 2 per company might be sane as well. But I could happily live without any protection as well.

Thanks

Rob :)

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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

Bruce Bannerman-3
In reply to this post by John Bryant
-1

Bruce

We need to get this resolved and not put it off to the never never.

I can live with a single membership class for voting on issues and board members.

However, we need to address the issue of having a process to remove non-performing etc Directors of the legal entity, e.g. those who refuse to resign and hand over control once voted out.  Perhaps a process using OSGeo Charter members from the OO community that I mentioned yesterday.

Kind regards,

Bruce


On 25 Sep 2019, at 18:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all, really pleased to see all this input, thanks for your time & energy.

This is obviously a topic that people feel strongly about, which is great. I feel that we're all aligned on the key principles: that we want to make the organisation accessible to new members, and we want it to be run responsibly, ie. members should be able to influence how it's run. There's a bit of distance between the various proposals on the table so far, but they're all aiming at these principles. To make progress, it looks like we're going to need to make some compromises.

I fully agree with Edoardo's reasoning for preferring a home-grown approach to membership. We're an OSGeo local chapter, but we're also more than that, notably (as Ed mentioned) we're in the process of applying to be a local chapter of OSMF as well. We need to ensure we wholeheartedly embrace the parts of our community that don't fall under the OSGeo umbrella.

I think we're roughly all on the same page re: voting membership, ie. we need members who vote, and they should pass some sort of eligibility threshold.

The key point of disagreement seems to be whether we have a 2nd tier of membership with a lower eligibility threshold, one where anyone can join, but there are no rights/responsibilities associated with it. There have been some questions asked about what real value this provides to such a member and to the organisation, which I struggle to answer. I'm also concerned about the extra messaging that would be required to communicate this to the community to overcome any potential confusion... this translates to work, and as a volunteer-run organisation, our time & energy have limits. Finally, I don't see that the eligibility threshold we're considering for membership is so high that it functionally excludes anyone who truly wants to be a part of this.

I strongly identify with the value proposition of making the organisation accessible to everyone though, so this is difficult for me...

But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this question: Can we live with a single membership type for now, which includes voting privileges?

I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our key priorities (voting membership, protect the org).

Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily extend it with some process whereby people in the community can self-identify as a "community member", or "citizen", or something like that. But there is much to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we really need to stay focused on that which must be done.

Something needs to give, so I'm hoping for some compromise.

Thanks
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

John Bryant
Sorry Bruce, I'm confused. You say you can live with a single membership class which is the question at hand, but you're -1?

Re: a process to remove directors, we are governed by the Corporations Act and our constitution. I believe these address this problem, though we can clarify this if needed. I don't agree that OSGeo charter members are an appropriate way to address this problem.

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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

Bruce Bannerman-3
John,

Do you have a link to these documents?

Bruce


> On 25 Sep 2019, at 20:23, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Sorry Bruce, I'm confused. You say you can live with a single membership class which is the question at hand, but you're -1?
>
> Re: a process to remove directors, we are governed by the Corporations Act and our constitution. I believe these address this problem, though we can clarify this if needed. I don't agree that OSGeo charter members are an appropriate way to address this problem.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Alister Hood-2
In reply to this post by Robert Coup
Hi, I was thinking along similar lines to Robert: people sign
themselves up and become "Provisional" Members.  By default their
membership is accepted after a set period of time.  I thought in some
cases the board may want to fast track membership for someone who is
making an obvious contribution to the community, but it is probably
better to say this is a set period which allows for people to raise
any concerns with a prospective member, and stick to it.

Regards,
Alister

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 21:00, Robert Coup <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
>
> IMO if protection is really necessary, it could be as simple as "only people who have been members for 3mo+ can vote". If there's some sudden influx then the org has 3 months to change the rules/sort it out. eg. InternetNZ has this (S3.6). Limiting officers to 2 per company might be sane as well. But I could happily live without any protection as well.
>
> Thanks
>
> Rob :)
_______________________________________________
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 John Bryant

+1 to single tier membership with possibility of adding a self identifying system later.

We previously did this with OSGeo Advocates: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate#Introduction

On 25/9/19 6:43 pm, John Bryant wrote:
Hi all, really pleased to see all this input, thanks for your time & energy.

This is obviously a topic that people feel strongly about, which is great. I feel that we're all aligned on the key principles: that we want to make the organisation accessible to new members, and we want it to be run responsibly, ie. members should be able to influence how it's run. There's a bit of distance between the various proposals on the table so far, but they're all aiming at these principles. To make progress, it looks like we're going to need to make some compromises.

I fully agree with Edoardo's reasoning for preferring a home-grown approach to membership. We're an OSGeo local chapter, but we're also more than that, notably (as Ed mentioned) we're in the process of applying to be a local chapter of OSMF as well. We need to ensure we wholeheartedly embrace the parts of our community that don't fall under the OSGeo umbrella.

I think we're roughly all on the same page re: voting membership, ie. we need members who vote, and they should pass some sort of eligibility threshold.

The key point of disagreement seems to be whether we have a 2nd tier of membership with a lower eligibility threshold, one where anyone can join, but there are no rights/responsibilities associated with it. There have been some questions asked about what real value this provides to such a member and to the organisation, which I struggle to answer. I'm also concerned about the extra messaging that would be required to communicate this to the community to overcome any potential confusion... this translates to work, and as a volunteer-run organisation, our time & energy have limits. Finally, I don't see that the eligibility threshold we're considering for membership is so high that it functionally excludes anyone who truly wants to be a part of this.

I strongly identify with the value proposition of making the organisation accessible to everyone though, so this is difficult for me...

But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this question: Can we live with a single membership type for now, which includes voting privileges?

I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our key priorities (voting membership, protect the org).

Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily extend it with some process whereby people in the community can self-identify as a "community member", or "citizen", or something like that. But there is much to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we really need to stay focused on that which must be done.

Something needs to give, so I'm hoping for some compromise.

Thanks
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

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by John Bryant

+1 to single tier membership with possibility of adding a self identifying system later.

We previously did this with OSGeo Advocates: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate#Introduction

On 25/9/19 6:43 pm, John Bryant wrote:
Hi all, really pleased to see all this input, thanks for your time & energy.

This is obviously a topic that people feel strongly about, which is great. I feel that we're all aligned on the key principles: that we want to make the organisation accessible to new members, and we want it to be run responsibly, ie. members should be able to influence how it's run. There's a bit of distance between the various proposals on the table so far, but they're all aiming at these principles. To make progress, it looks like we're going to need to make some compromises.

I fully agree with Edoardo's reasoning for preferring a home-grown approach to membership. We're an OSGeo local chapter, but we're also more than that, notably (as Ed mentioned) we're in the process of applying to be a local chapter of OSMF as well. We need to ensure we wholeheartedly embrace the parts of our community that don't fall under the OSGeo umbrella.

I think we're roughly all on the same page re: voting membership, ie. we need members who vote, and they should pass some sort of eligibility threshold.

The key point of disagreement seems to be whether we have a 2nd tier of membership with a lower eligibility threshold, one where anyone can join, but there are no rights/responsibilities associated with it. There have been some questions asked about what real value this provides to such a member and to the organisation, which I struggle to answer. I'm also concerned about the extra messaging that would be required to communicate this to the community to overcome any potential confusion... this translates to work, and as a volunteer-run organisation, our time & energy have limits. Finally, I don't see that the eligibility threshold we're considering for membership is so high that it functionally excludes anyone who truly wants to be a part of this.

I strongly identify with the value proposition of making the organisation accessible to everyone though, so this is difficult for me...

But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this question: Can we live with a single membership type for now, which includes voting privileges?

I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our key priorities (voting membership, protect the org).

Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily extend it with some process whereby people in the community can self-identify as a "community member", or "citizen", or something like that. But there is much to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we really need to stay focused on that which must be done.

Something needs to give, so I'm hoping for some compromise.

Thanks
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

Bruce Bannerman-3
In reply to this post by John Bryant
John thanks for the link to the Company Constitution (in your response to Alister).

I can see that:

- a Director’s term is for twelve months. After which they are to retire. The obligation appears to be on the director to actually do so.

- the board can expel a member who has breached an obligation under the constitution by a vote of the board with 75% of those present agreeing to do so.

It may be prudent to make this situation explicit in the event the outgoing director does not actually retire from the board.

One other aspect that may be unclear is that this vote about the type of membership that we want in OSGeo Oceania is not just about community membership, but jointly about membership of the OO legal entity.

Based on what I’ve read, I’ll now change my vote, but suggest that we revisit this in one to two years time to make sure that it is achieving what we want.

Therefore:

+1

Kind regards,

Bruce

> On 25 Sep 2019, at 20:23, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Sorry Bruce, I'm confused. You say you can live with a single membership class which is the question at hand, but you're -1?
>
> Re: a process to remove directors, we are governed by the Corporations Act and our constitution. I believe these address this problem, though we can clarify this if needed. I don't agree that OSGeo charter members are an appropriate way to address this problem.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Bruce Bannerman-3
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Cameron,

I like the idea of self identification. Would you just see this as being a declaration of OO membership within the existing OSGeo Advocates process, or a separate process?

Bruce


On 26 Sep 2019, at 06:14, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

+1 to single tier membership with possibility of adding a self identifying system later.

We previously did this with OSGeo Advocates: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate#Introduction

On 25/9/19 6:43 pm, John Bryant wrote:
Hi all, really pleased to see all this input, thanks for your time & energy.

This is obviously a topic that people feel strongly about, which is great. I feel that we're all aligned on the key principles: that we want to make the organisation accessible to new members, and we want it to be run responsibly, ie. members should be able to influence how it's run. There's a bit of distance between the various proposals on the table so far, but they're all aiming at these principles. To make progress, it looks like we're going to need to make some compromises.

I fully agree with Edoardo's reasoning for preferring a home-grown approach to membership. We're an OSGeo local chapter, but we're also more than that, notably (as Ed mentioned) we're in the process of applying to be a local chapter of OSMF as well. We need to ensure we wholeheartedly embrace the parts of our community that don't fall under the OSGeo umbrella.

I think we're roughly all on the same page re: voting membership, ie. we need members who vote, and they should pass some sort of eligibility threshold.

The key point of disagreement seems to be whether we have a 2nd tier of membership with a lower eligibility threshold, one where anyone can join, but there are no rights/responsibilities associated with it. There have been some questions asked about what real value this provides to such a member and to the organisation, which I struggle to answer. I'm also concerned about the extra messaging that would be required to communicate this to the community to overcome any potential confusion... this translates to work, and as a volunteer-run organisation, our time & energy have limits. Finally, I don't see that the eligibility threshold we're considering for membership is so high that it functionally excludes anyone who truly wants to be a part of this.

I strongly identify with the value proposition of making the organisation accessible to everyone though, so this is difficult for me...

But in the interest of moving forward, and focusing on the most urgent outcome (determine a process for a voting membership), let me ask this question: Can we live with a single membership type for now, which includes voting privileges?

I believe this single membership type will sufficiently address our key priorities (voting membership, protect the org).

Once we establish this membership type, I feel we could very easily extend it with some process whereby people in the community can self-identify as a "community member", or "citizen", or something like that. But there is much to do in the next 2-3 months, and I feel we really need to stay focused on that which must be done.

Something needs to give, so I'm hoping for some compromise.

Thanks
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

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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

Bruce Bannerman-3
In reply to this post by Edoardo Neerhut
Thanks Ed,

You make some good points regarding dual affiliation with OpenStreetMap.

Cheers,

Bruce

On 24 Sep 2019, at 19:16, Edoardo Neerhut <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree we need to remember our role in the international community and be wary of reinventing the wheel.

I wanted to address your point on the structure of membership and operating within the international framework. I can think of two reasons why we should devise a framework that works best for Oceania which is not necessarily the same thing as the current OSGeo membership structure.
  1. OSGeo Oceania was setup as a body to represent and foster the OSGeo community, but also OpenStreetMap efforts. On the latter, we are currently pending confirmation to become the recognised Local Chapter by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). OSMF has its own membership structure and procedures. We need to consider both if we are to represent both communities. I would argue that Melbourne last year proved that the FOSS4G + SotM coupling worked well and could be improved upon further. If this is to remain the case, our membership structure needs to be appealing to both communities.
  2. We should choose the membership structure that makes sense for our community at this point in time. There is a lot to learn and replicate from OSGeo, but I don't think we should be a carbon copy of the international structure. We have unique characteristics such as diverse economic conditions and a relatively small community when compared to Europe/North America. I think innovation in the structure of our community can go both ways. Both international -> down and local -> up.
There is a lot to consider here in this membership discussion and many ways to approach this, so I am appreciating the discussion.

Cheers,

Ed

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 03:03, Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi John and fellow OO Community Members,

I’ve now gone through the proposed document and comments either in the document or on this list.

Some observations:

  • We need to remember that we are part of the global OSGeo Community and operate within that community and framework. In my opinion the International OSGeo is where much of the community’s work occurs. OSGeo Oceania provides the regional focus and allows us to coordinate regionally and to communicate global developments and efforts.

  • Therefore it is not appropriate that we set up a separate framework to replace OSGeo (not that I see that anyone has suggested this).

  • I see that the main reason for the perceived need for two tiers of membership within OSGeo Oceania (OO) is to ensure that: 
    • We have people as directors of the legal entity who hold positive attributes that we admire. These attributes include:
      • acting for the greater good of OSGeo Oceania and OSGeo;
      • active and positive contributions to community activities; and 
      • are of good and ethical repute.

    • There is also a secondary requirement as highlighted by Alister: to remove Directors who won’t resign voluntarily from the OO legal entity at the end of their term, or who are not acting in the best interests of either OSGeo Oceania or OSGeo.

  • As noted by several people, the overheads of managing an additional membership process for OSGeo Oceania (in addition to that required for OSGeo) is likely to be onerous. However, we still need a two tier membership process to protect the best interests of the OSGeo and OSGeo communities and the OO Legal entity.

  • Therefore in the interest of keeping things simple, I propose the following variant to what has been discussed:
    • Keep a two tier membership process as outlined in the document.
    • The main membership categary comprises those who self nominate to be members of the OO Community, by signing up to one of the OSGeo Oceania mailing lists and participate in discussion and activities.
    • The second Charter Member category automatically comprises OSGeo Charter Members [1] who are also members of the OO Community.

  • This approach:
    • negates the need for having OO to manage a separate membership process
    • makes clear the relationship between OSGeo and OSGeo Oceania.
    • Uses existing and proven OSGeo contributers of good repute by way of OSGeo Charter Members. 
    • Allows for new OSGeo Charter Members to be proposed from the OSGeo Oceania community within the tried and tested OSGeo Charter Member process.

  • There will still be the need to:
    • Define our membership levels and processes
    • Define and hold an election process (every two years?) to refresh our pool of board members / legal entity directors.
    • (probably) revise the OO Legal Enity’s Articles of Association to allow for a process for OSGeo Charter Members (within the to be defined Oceania region) to remove non-performing directors etc of the legal entity etc.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

Bruce





On 23 Sep 2019, at 18:29, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks all for a quite robust discussion on this important topic, it's really great to see this much engagement. There seems to be a fair bit of discomfort with the two tier model proposed, and I agree that it may introduce more complexity than we really want. To move forward, I'd like to propose a simplified alternative:
  • We have a single type of membership that confers voting rights.
  • To ensure a reasonable level of engagement, while protecting the org against bad actors/hostile takeover/etc, we roughly follow this process:
    • take nominations for new members
    • use an eligibility threshold that balances accessibility with genuine engagement
    • include a ratification step that could be done by the board, or a membership working group (TBD)
This doesn't capture all the detail of how this would work, but if it's acceptable in broad strokes, I can update our draft policy and we can work through the details over next couple of days.

Any objections?

_______________________________________________
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

Alex Leith
Hi All

+1 from me

I like keeping things simple until they need to be more complex!

Cheers,

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 10:26, Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks Ed,

You make some good points regarding dual affiliation with OpenStreetMap.

Cheers,

Bruce

On 24 Sep 2019, at 19:16, Edoardo Neerhut <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree we need to remember our role in the international community and be wary of reinventing the wheel.

I wanted to address your point on the structure of membership and operating within the international framework. I can think of two reasons why we should devise a framework that works best for Oceania which is not necessarily the same thing as the current OSGeo membership structure.
  1. OSGeo Oceania was setup as a body to represent and foster the OSGeo community, but also OpenStreetMap efforts. On the latter, we are currently pending confirmation to become the recognised Local Chapter by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). OSMF has its own membership structure and procedures. We need to consider both if we are to represent both communities. I would argue that Melbourne last year proved that the FOSS4G + SotM coupling worked well and could be improved upon further. If this is to remain the case, our membership structure needs to be appealing to both communities.
  2. We should choose the membership structure that makes sense for our community at this point in time. There is a lot to learn and replicate from OSGeo, but I don't think we should be a carbon copy of the international structure. We have unique characteristics such as diverse economic conditions and a relatively small community when compared to Europe/North America. I think innovation in the structure of our community can go both ways. Both international -> down and local -> up.
There is a lot to consider here in this membership discussion and many ways to approach this, so I am appreciating the discussion.

Cheers,

Ed

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 03:03, Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi John and fellow OO Community Members,

I’ve now gone through the proposed document and comments either in the document or on this list.

Some observations:

  • We need to remember that we are part of the global OSGeo Community and operate within that community and framework. In my opinion the International OSGeo is where much of the community’s work occurs. OSGeo Oceania provides the regional focus and allows us to coordinate regionally and to communicate global developments and efforts.

  • Therefore it is not appropriate that we set up a separate framework to replace OSGeo (not that I see that anyone has suggested this).

  • I see that the main reason for the perceived need for two tiers of membership within OSGeo Oceania (OO) is to ensure that: 
    • We have people as directors of the legal entity who hold positive attributes that we admire. These attributes include:
      • acting for the greater good of OSGeo Oceania and OSGeo;
      • active and positive contributions to community activities; and 
      • are of good and ethical repute.

    • There is also a secondary requirement as highlighted by Alister: to remove Directors who won’t resign voluntarily from the OO legal entity at the end of their term, or who are not acting in the best interests of either OSGeo Oceania or OSGeo.

  • As noted by several people, the overheads of managing an additional membership process for OSGeo Oceania (in addition to that required for OSGeo) is likely to be onerous. However, we still need a two tier membership process to protect the best interests of the OSGeo and OSGeo communities and the OO Legal entity.

  • Therefore in the interest of keeping things simple, I propose the following variant to what has been discussed:
    • Keep a two tier membership process as outlined in the document.
    • The main membership categary comprises those who self nominate to be members of the OO Community, by signing up to one of the OSGeo Oceania mailing lists and participate in discussion and activities.
    • The second Charter Member category automatically comprises OSGeo Charter Members [1] who are also members of the OO Community.

  • This approach:
    • negates the need for having OO to manage a separate membership process
    • makes clear the relationship between OSGeo and OSGeo Oceania.
    • Uses existing and proven OSGeo contributers of good repute by way of OSGeo Charter Members. 
    • Allows for new OSGeo Charter Members to be proposed from the OSGeo Oceania community within the tried and tested OSGeo Charter Member process.

  • There will still be the need to:
    • Define our membership levels and processes
    • Define and hold an election process (every two years?) to refresh our pool of board members / legal entity directors.
    • (probably) revise the OO Legal Enity’s Articles of Association to allow for a process for OSGeo Charter Members (within the to be defined Oceania region) to remove non-performing directors etc of the legal entity etc.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

Bruce





On 23 Sep 2019, at 18:29, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks all for a quite robust discussion on this important topic, it's really great to see this much engagement. There seems to be a fair bit of discomfort with the two tier model proposed, and I agree that it may introduce more complexity than we really want. To move forward, I'd like to propose a simplified alternative:
  • We have a single type of membership that confers voting rights.
  • To ensure a reasonable level of engagement, while protecting the org against bad actors/hostile takeover/etc, we roughly follow this process:
    • take nominations for new members
    • use an eligibility threshold that balances accessibility with genuine engagement
    • include a ratification step that could be done by the board, or a membership working group (TBD)
This doesn't capture all the detail of how this would work, but if it's acceptable in broad strokes, I can update our draft policy and we can work through the details over next couple of days.

Any objections?

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

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


--
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050

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

Re: membership - elections - AGM

John Bryant
Thanks all for compromising, good teamwork spirit. These long email discussions can be fatiguing, so I appreciate your patience. I'll take all this feedback and input, and pull together a next draft. Hopefully we're just about there.

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
Hi again,

The board has gone over the details, taken some professional advice, and prepared another draft of the membership policy. I hope at this point it reads well, clearly expresses intent, is workable, and is acceptable to the community.

I'd like to put this forward for a few days of community review. Please respond with comments and questions, and I'll ask the board to help me in responding. Please bear in mind the considerable discussion that has already happened... the policy contains some compromise positions, I suggest we don't re-open those discussions as it may cause delay without any material benefit. Let's all stay positive and remember we're at the beginning and this can evolve over time...

Draft is here [1]. I think we should aim to proceed with a motion to adopt around the end of the week.

Cheers!
John



On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks all for compromising, good teamwork spirit. These long email discussions can be fatiguing, so I appreciate your patience. I'll take all this feedback and input, and pull together a next draft. Hopefully we're just about there.

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

adam steer-2
Thanks John, the document is looking good and shiny. Just a couple of comments on the MWG workload and timing, no objections to anything.

Well done!

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 18:21, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi again,

The board has gone over the details, taken some professional advice, and prepared another draft of the membership policy. I hope at this point it reads well, clearly expresses intent, is workable, and is acceptable to the community.

I'd like to put this forward for a few days of community review. Please respond with comments and questions, and I'll ask the board to help me in responding. Please bear in mind the considerable discussion that has already happened... the policy contains some compromise positions, I suggest we don't re-open those discussions as it may cause delay without any material benefit. Let's all stay positive and remember we're at the beginning and this can evolve over time...

Draft is here [1]. I think we should aim to proceed with a motion to adopt around the end of the week.

Cheers!
John



On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks all for compromising, good teamwork spirit. These long email discussions can be fatiguing, so I appreciate your patience. I'll take all this feedback and input, and pull together a next draft. Hopefully we're just about there.

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

John Bryant
Thanks Adam, good points. Have responded in comments.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 19:58, adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks John, the document is looking good and shiny. Just a couple of comments on the MWG workload and timing, no objections to anything.

Well done!

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 18:21, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi again,

The board has gone over the details, taken some professional advice, and prepared another draft of the membership policy. I hope at this point it reads well, clearly expresses intent, is workable, and is acceptable to the community.

I'd like to put this forward for a few days of community review. Please respond with comments and questions, and I'll ask the board to help me in responding. Please bear in mind the considerable discussion that has already happened... the policy contains some compromise positions, I suggest we don't re-open those discussions as it may cause delay without any material benefit. Let's all stay positive and remember we're at the beginning and this can evolve over time...

Draft is here [1]. I think we should aim to proceed with a motion to adopt around the end of the week.

Cheers!
John



On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks all for compromising, good teamwork spirit. These long email discussions can be fatiguing, so I appreciate your patience. I'll take all this feedback and input, and pull together a next draft. Hopefully we're just about there.

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

Bruce Bannerman-3
In reply to this post by John Bryant
OK by me.

Well done.

Bruce

On 7 Oct 2019, at 21:20, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi again,

The board has gone over the details, taken some professional advice, and prepared another draft of the membership policy. I hope at this point it reads well, clearly expresses intent, is workable, and is acceptable to the community.

I'd like to put this forward for a few days of community review. Please respond with comments and questions, and I'll ask the board to help me in responding. Please bear in mind the considerable discussion that has already happened... the policy contains some compromise positions, I suggest we don't re-open those discussions as it may cause delay without any material benefit. Let's all stay positive and remember we're at the beginning and this can evolve over time...

Draft is here [1]. I think we should aim to proceed with a motion to adopt around the end of the week.

Cheers!
John



On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks all for compromising, good teamwork spirit. These long email discussions can be fatiguing, so I appreciate your patience. I'll take all this feedback and input, and pull together a next draft. Hopefully we're just about there.

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

adam steer-2
In reply to this post by John Bryant
Thanks John, all good here. +1

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 12:27, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks Adam, good points. Have responded in comments.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 19:58, adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks John, the document is looking good and shiny. Just a couple of comments on the MWG workload and timing, no objections to anything.

Well done!

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 18:21, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi again,

The board has gone over the details, taken some professional advice, and prepared another draft of the membership policy. I hope at this point it reads well, clearly expresses intent, is workable, and is acceptable to the community.

I'd like to put this forward for a few days of community review. Please respond with comments and questions, and I'll ask the board to help me in responding. Please bear in mind the considerable discussion that has already happened... the policy contains some compromise positions, I suggest we don't re-open those discussions as it may cause delay without any material benefit. Let's all stay positive and remember we're at the beginning and this can evolve over time...

Draft is here [1]. I think we should aim to proceed with a motion to adopt around the end of the week.

Cheers!
John



On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:43, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks all for compromising, good teamwork spirit. These long email discussions can be fatiguing, so I appreciate your patience. I'll take all this feedback and input, and pull together a next draft. Hopefully we're just about there.

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

John Bryant
In reply to this post by John Bryant
From Kerry:

COMMENT: If anyone can nominate new members - can you self-nominate?  In which case isn't this an application for membership? Is the intention that the nominator is already a member, because this is not specified.

It does seem odd that anybody in the whole world can nominate another person for membership.


Thanks Kerry. This was intentionally introduced on 27 Sep when we attempted to resolve some disagreement by consolidating two membership tiers into a single tier. Since one key idea is to keep a low barrier to entry, while still maintaining some control over the membership process, this was changed from "any member may nominate..." to "anybody can nominate..." so that we're avoiding an "inner circle" situation.

I don't think it's especially odd that anybody in the whole world can nominate (including self-nomination). If someone meets our eligibility criteria, and wishes to become a member, then we should welcome them as members regardless of who they know.

_______________________________________________
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, Kerry

this model of ‘anyone can sign up’ also fits the broader OSMF and OSGeo models. In OSMF you just pay, in OSGeo you go to a website and create yourself an account.

Thanks everyone for their hard work on this document, I think it is a wonderful result from a series of well considered compromises and thoughtful, experience-based input.

Regards

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 10:21, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:
From Kerry:

COMMENT: If anyone can nominate new members - can you self-nominate?  In which case isn't this an application for membership? Is the intention that the nominator is already a member, because this is not specified.

It does seem odd that anybody in the whole world can nominate another person for membership.


Thanks Kerry. This was intentionally introduced on 27 Sep when we attempted to resolve some disagreement by consolidating two membership tiers into a single tier. Since one key idea is to keep a low barrier to entry, while still maintaining some control over the membership process, this was changed from "any member may nominate..." to "anybody can nominate..." so that we're avoiding an "inner circle" situation.

I don't think it's especially odd that anybody in the whole world can nominate (including self-nomination). If someone meets our eligibility criteria, and wishes to become a member, then we should welcome them as members regardless of who they know.
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania


--

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