resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers

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

resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers

jody.garnett
We have now exhausted the three proposals put forth in the IRC meeting.

I would like to resume discussion, asking all board members to listen now and compose a motion that that can be approved. In several cases the voting process is shutting down conversation at the expense of communication.

Please take a moment to read why each motion was rejected, and what you could do to open up communication with the parties that were forced to vote "no".
--
Jody Garnett

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

Re: resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers

Venkatesh Raghavan
Dear All,

I am voting "disagreed" for the present MOT6 on loomio because;

a) I have already voted "agreed" for "MOT3: President and Vice-President be selecting
from current board" and also explained my views in my earlier mail to this list [1].

b) I think the President and regional Vice-President should be able
to vote on motions tabled at the board meetings. This is presently
possible only for elected board members.

I am also for continuing our current practice of appointing our charter members
(or external members, although there is no precedence for this) as
Officers for other committee (marketing, incubation, SAC, Geo4All, UN, etc.)
and software PSCs.

Current board members Helena, Angelos and Anita were nominated as regional
Vice-President at our last board meeting. Anita had declined. Therefore,
I would like to propose the following new motions.

MOT8: Helena to continue as regional Vice-President for the rest of
her term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
Maria at the board meenting held on 3 Nov. 2016)

MOT9: Appoint Angelos as our new regional Vice-President for the rest of
his term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
Maria at the board meeting held on 3 Nov. 2016 and also earlier on loomio)

Best

Venka

[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2016-November/014703.html

On 11/9/2016 3:56 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
We have now exhausted the three proposals put forth in the IRC meeting.

I would like to resume discussion, asking all board members to listen now
and compose a motion that that can be approved. In several cases the voting
process is shutting down conversation at the expense of communication.

Please take a moment to read why each motion was rejected, and what you
could do to open up communication with the parties that were forced to vote
"no".
--
Jody Garnett



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



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

Re: resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers

jody.garnett
Venka, you have failed to acknowledge the reasons why Michael Smith and myself did not vote for MOT3 - and skipped straight ahead to other motions.

Please stop; respect others; and try and build consensus. 

--
Jody Garnett

On 8 November 2016 at 15:02, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear All,

I am voting "disagreed" for the present MOT6 on loomio because;

a) I have already voted "agreed" for "MOT3: President and Vice-President be selecting
from current board" and also explained my views in my earlier mail to this list [1].

b) I think the President and regional Vice-President should be able
to vote on motions tabled at the board meetings. This is presently
possible only for elected board members.

I am also for continuing our current practice of appointing our charter members
(or external members, although there is no precedence for this) as
Officers for other committee (marketing, incubation, SAC, Geo4All, UN, etc.)
and software PSCs.

Current board members Helena, Angelos and Anita were nominated as regional
Vice-President at our last board meeting. Anita had declined. Therefore,
I would like to propose the following new motions.

MOT8: Helena to continue as regional Vice-President for the rest of
her term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
Maria at the board meenting held on 3 Nov. 2016)

MOT9: Appoint Angelos as our new regional Vice-President for the rest of
his term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
Maria at the board meeting held on 3 Nov. 2016 and also earlier on loomio)

Best

Venka

[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2016-November/014703.html


On 11/9/2016 3:56 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
We have now exhausted the three proposals put forth in the IRC meeting.

I would like to resume discussion, asking all board members to listen now
and compose a motion that that can be approved. In several cases the voting
process is shutting down conversation at the expense of communication.

Please take a moment to read why each motion was rejected, and what you
could do to open up communication with the parties that were forced to vote
"no".
--
Jody Garnett



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



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


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

Re: resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers

jody.garnett
In reply to this post by Venkatesh Raghavan
 
Current board members Helena, Angelos and Anita were nominated as regional
Vice-President at our last board meeting. Anita had declined. Therefore,
I would like to propose the following new motions.

We also had Dirk nominated.

...

I was treating the role of "President and Vice-President" more as covering the responsibilities of "Executive officer" in keeping with our by-laws (see Section 5.6). This is distinct from the role of "Chair of the Board"(section 5.5) although we seem to be combining them.

Thank you for considering the role of charter members for other committees, while I see what you are getting at it leaves me with some confusion:
a) the foundation lists "officers of the corporation": Chair of the Board, a President, a Secretary, and a Treasurer
b) we have recognized additional officers over time (http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/board_and_officers.html ). These represents officers of our corporation (covered under our liability insurance). By recognizing these individuals, in this capacity, they are able to act in an official capacity for our organization (this save the time/trouble of working through the board monthly meetings).

I think this is where we (me and you) are getting stuck on setting a precedent. It does no good to ask me to rewrite the bylaws, as we would just put off the conversation one level removed, and still be stuck on the current task of electing officers. I am of course willing to rewrite bylaws if it is of benefit.

End of the day:
- I want our officers recognized (and protected) equally
- I would like future boards to have a chance to cast a wide net when recurituing volunteers
- I do not want the board members to be over taxed as volunteers
- I do not want the board to overreach in terms of responsibility

If the current board (or a future board) is more conformable having officers that have can vote in the decision making process then it can consider this when evaluating nominations any given year. There is of course other ways to allow officers a say in what goes on ... setting up a working group to tackle an issue on behalf of a board is an approach I favour.

I do not want to trade a short term awkwardness with competing nominations (as a board we are compelled to make the tough choices) for a long term precedent that stifles growth.  

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

Re: resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
Hi Jody,

On 11/9/2016 8:26 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Venka, you have failed to acknowledge the reasons why Michael Smith and
> myself did not vote for MOT3 - and skipped straight ahead to other motions.

I acknowledge that Mike and Jody voted disagreed for MOT3
Mike felt that the President and Vice-President appointments
could be open to persons with past experience in the OSGeo board.
Jody expressed that President and Vice-President could be
appointed from among our Charter members.

I came with the new motions in response to requests
to come up alternative motions when disagreeing. It was not my
intention of skipping ahead but only propose
alternative motion while expressing my disagreement to
a current motion.

> Please stop; respect others; and try and build consensus.

I meant disrespect to the opinion of others and the mail
below is a part of my effort to build consensus by
proposing alternatives. You may kindly note that I have
stated in the loomio thread that MOT8 and MOT9
could be moved if there is no objection from others.

Best

Venka

>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 8 November 2016 at 15:02, Venkatesh Raghavan <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I am voting "disagreed" for the present MOT6 on loomio because;
>>
>> a) I have already voted "agreed" for "MOT3: President and Vice-President
>> be selecting
>> from current board" and also explained my views in my earlier mail to this
>> list [1].
>>
>> b) I think the President and regional Vice-President should be able
>> to vote on motions tabled at the board meetings. This is presently
>> possible only for elected board members.
>>
>> I am also for continuing our current practice of appointing our charter
>> members
>> (or external members, although there is no precedence for this) as
>> Officers for other committee (marketing, incubation, SAC, Geo4All, UN,
>> etc.)
>> and software PSCs.
>>
>> Current board members Helena, Angelos and Anita were nominated as regional
>> Vice-President at our last board meeting. Anita had declined. Therefore,
>> I would like to propose the following new motions.
>>
>> MOT8: Helena to continue as regional Vice-President for the rest of
>> her term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
>> Maria at the board meenting held on 3 Nov. 2016)
>>
>> MOT9: Appoint Angelos as our new regional Vice-President for the rest of
>> his term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
>> Maria at the board meeting held on 3 Nov. 2016 and also earlier on loomio)
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Venka
>>
>> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2016-November/014703.html
>>
>>
>> On 11/9/2016 3:56 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>
>> We have now exhausted the three proposals put forth in the IRC meeting.
>>
>> I would like to resume discussion, asking all board members to listen now
>> and compose a motion that that can be approved. In several cases the voting
>> process is shutting down conversation at the expense of communication.
>>
>> Please take a moment to read why each motion was rejected, and what you
>> could do to open up communication with the parties that were forced to vote
>> "no".
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing [hidden email]://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>

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

Re: resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
On 11/9/2016 8:50 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> Current board members Helena, Angelos and Anita were nominated as regional
>> Vice-President at our last board meeting. Anita had declined. Therefore,
>> I would like to propose the following new motions.
>>
>
> We also had Dirk nominated.

Yes, that is correct. You may kindly notice that I mentioned only
"Current board members" (in keeping with my view tha President and
regional Vice President be selected from "Current board members".

Best

Venka


>
> ...
>
> I was treating the role of "President and Vice-President" more as covering
> the responsibilities of "Executive officer" in keeping with our by-laws
> (see Section 5.6). This is distinct from the role of "Chair of the
> Board"(section 5.5) although we seem to be combining them.
>
> Thank you for considering the role of charter members for other committees,
> while I see what you are getting at it leaves me with some confusion:
> a) the foundation lists "officers of the corporation": Chair of the Board,
> a President, a Secretary, and a Treasurer
> b) we have recognized additional officers over time (
> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/board_and_officers.html ). These
> represents officers of our corporation (covered under our liability
> insurance). By recognizing these individuals, in this capacity, they are
> able to act in an official capacity for our organization (this save the
> time/trouble of working through the board monthly meetings).
>
> I think this is where we (me and you) are getting stuck on setting
> a precedent. It does no good to ask me to rewrite the bylaws, as we would
> just put off the conversation one level removed, and still be stuck on the
> current task of electing officers. I am of course willing to rewrite bylaws
> if it is of benefit.
>
> End of the day:
> - I want our officers recognized (and protected) equally
> - I would like future boards to have a chance to cast a wide net when
> recurituing volunteers
> - I do not want the board members to be over taxed as volunteers
> - I do not want the board to overreach in terms of responsibility
>
> If the current board (or a future board) is more conformable having
> officers that have can vote in the decision making process then it can
> consider this when evaluating nominations any given year. There is of
> course other ways to allow officers a say in what goes on ... setting up a
> working group to tackle an issue on behalf of a board is an approach I
> favour.
>
> I do not want to trade a short term awkwardness with competing nominations
> (as a board we are compelled to make the tough choices) for a long term
> precedent that stifles growth.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>

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

Re: resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers

jody.garnett
In reply to this post by Venkatesh Raghavan-2
Thanks Venka, I felt bad after mailing that terse response - please forgive me.

I have sent a longer email trying to explore what we are looking at, I trust we can find a good balance.

--
Jody Garnett

On 8 November 2016 at 15:51, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Jody,

On 11/9/2016 8:26 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Venka, you have failed to acknowledge the reasons why Michael Smith and
myself did not vote for MOT3 - and skipped straight ahead to other motions.

I acknowledge that Mike and Jody voted disagreed for MOT3
Mike felt that the President and Vice-President appointments
could be open to persons with past experience in the OSGeo board.
Jody expressed that President and Vice-President could be
appointed from among our Charter members.

I came with the new motions in response to requests
to come up alternative motions when disagreeing. It was not my
intention of skipping ahead but only propose
alternative motion while expressing my disagreement to
a current motion.

Please stop; respect others; and try and build consensus.

I meant disrespect to the opinion of others and the mail
below is a part of my effort to build consensus by
proposing alternatives. You may kindly note that I have
stated in the loomio thread that MOT8 and MOT9
could be moved if there is no objection from others.

Best

Venka


--
Jody Garnett

On 8 November 2016 at 15:02, Venkatesh Raghavan <
[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear All,

I am voting "disagreed" for the present MOT6 on loomio because;

a) I have already voted "agreed" for "MOT3: President and Vice-President
be selecting
from current board" and also explained my views in my earlier mail to this
list [1].

b) I think the President and regional Vice-President should be able
to vote on motions tabled at the board meetings. This is presently
possible only for elected board members.

I am also for continuing our current practice of appointing our charter
members
(or external members, although there is no precedence for this) as
Officers for other committee (marketing, incubation, SAC, Geo4All, UN,
etc.)
and software PSCs.

Current board members Helena, Angelos and Anita were nominated as regional
Vice-President at our last board meeting. Anita had declined. Therefore,
I would like to propose the following new motions.

MOT8: Helena to continue as regional Vice-President for the rest of
her term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
Maria at the board meenting held on 3 Nov. 2016)

MOT9: Appoint Angelos as our new regional Vice-President for the rest of
his term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
Maria at the board meeting held on 3 Nov. 2016 and also earlier on loomio)

Best

Venka

[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2016-November/014703.html


On 11/9/2016 3:56 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

We have now exhausted the three proposals put forth in the IRC meeting.

I would like to resume discussion, asking all board members to listen now
and compose a motion that that can be approved. In several cases the voting
process is shutting down conversation at the expense of communication.

Please take a moment to read why each motion was rejected, and what you
could do to open up communication with the parties that were forced to vote
"no".
--
Jody Garnett




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



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




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


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


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

Re: resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
In reply to this post by Venkatesh Raghavan-2
On 11/9/2016 8:51 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
...
>> Please stop; respect others; and try and build consensus.
>
> I meant disrespect to the opinion of others and the mail

That should read *no disrespect"

Best

venka

> below is a part of my effort to build consensus by
> proposing alternatives. You may kindly note that I have
> stated in the loomio thread that MOT8 and MOT9
> could be moved if there is no objection from others.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>> On 8 November 2016 at 15:02, Venkatesh Raghavan <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I am voting "disagreed" for the present MOT6 on loomio because;
>>>
>>> a) I have already voted "agreed" for "MOT3: President and Vice-President
>>> be selecting
>>> from current board" and also explained my views in my earlier mail to
>>> this
>>> list [1].
>>>
>>> b) I think the President and regional Vice-President should be able
>>> to vote on motions tabled at the board meetings. This is presently
>>> possible only for elected board members.
>>>
>>> I am also for continuing our current practice of appointing our charter
>>> members
>>> (or external members, although there is no precedence for this) as
>>> Officers for other committee (marketing, incubation, SAC, Geo4All, UN,
>>> etc.)
>>> and software PSCs.
>>>
>>> Current board members Helena, Angelos and Anita were nominated as
>>> regional
>>> Vice-President at our last board meeting. Anita had declined. Therefore,
>>> I would like to propose the following new motions.
>>>
>>> MOT8: Helena to continue as regional Vice-President for the rest of
>>> her term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
>>> Maria at the board meenting held on 3 Nov. 2016)
>>>
>>> MOT9: Appoint Angelos as our new regional Vice-President for the rest of
>>> his term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
>>> Maria at the board meeting held on 3 Nov. 2016 and also earlier on
>>> loomio)
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Venka
>>>
>>> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2016-November/014703.html
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/9/2016 3:56 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>
>>> We have now exhausted the three proposals put forth in the IRC meeting.
>>>
>>> I would like to resume discussion, asking all board members to listen
>>> now
>>> and compose a motion that that can be approved. In several cases the
>>> voting
>>> process is shutting down conversation at the expense of communication.
>>>
>>> Please take a moment to read why each motion was rejected, and what you
>>> could do to open up communication with the parties that were forced
>>> to vote
>>> "no".
>>> --
>>> Jody Garnett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing
>>> [hidden email]://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>

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

Re: resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers

Maria Antonia Brovelli
In reply to this post by jody.garnett

Dear Jody, dear Venka

sorry for my delay. I'm in Seoul committed with the UN Open GIS Meeting with few time and some jet lag effetcs.


Below my points.


As for the general question:

- we are going to discuss (we decided that)  about OSGeo bylaws. I suggest we postpone also this discussion (President/Vice Presidents as Members of the Board) during the revision of the bylaws.


As for now:

- As we have two Directors who were nominated, seconded and who accepted, I don't see the reason why we need to take members outside the Board. The Members of  the current Board were elected at the last elections. The votes they received were awarding their strong activity for and with the community. So, I really don't understand why we have to disregard the message derived from the vote. People don't vote randomly. Their message is clear: Angelos received many votes for all he have been doing. I'm not saying that other people are worse, but the message from the Community is: we trust Angelos more than other people. So, please let me know which is the reason why you want to do something different. I'm not against Dirk,  I like him but, despite the fact he was one of the two previous Vice President, he received less votes than Angelos.

This is the reason why I'm favour of Angelos and Helena as next Vice Presidents.


Regards, 

Maria




----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET 

Sol Katz Award 2015

 

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)

Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321

e-mail1: [hidden email][hidden email]

e-mail2: [hidden email]




 




Da: Board <[hidden email]> per conto di Jody Garnett <[hidden email]>
Inviato: mercoledì 9 novembre 2016 01.05
A: Venkatesh Raghavan
Cc: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [Board] resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers
 
Thanks Venka, I felt bad after mailing that terse response - please forgive me.

I have sent a longer email trying to explore what we are looking at, I trust we can find a good balance.

--
Jody Garnett

On 8 November 2016 at 15:51, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Jody,

On 11/9/2016 8:26 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Venka, you have failed to acknowledge the reasons why Michael Smith and
myself did not vote for MOT3 - and skipped straight ahead to other motions.

I acknowledge that Mike and Jody voted disagreed for MOT3
Mike felt that the President and Vice-President appointments
could be open to persons with past experience in the OSGeo board.
Jody expressed that President and Vice-President could be
appointed from among our Charter members.

I came with the new motions in response to requests
to come up alternative motions when disagreeing. It was not my
intention of skipping ahead but only propose
alternative motion while expressing my disagreement to
a current motion.

Please stop; respect others; and try and build consensus.

I meant disrespect to the opinion of others and the mail
below is a part of my effort to build consensus by
proposing alternatives. You may kindly note that I have
stated in the loomio thread that MOT8 and MOT9
could be moved if there is no objection from others.

Best

Venka


--
Jody Garnett

On 8 November 2016 at 15:02, Venkatesh Raghavan <
[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear All,

I am voting "disagreed" for the present MOT6 on loomio because;

a) I have already voted "agreed" for "MOT3: President and Vice-President
be selecting
from current board" and also explained my views in my earlier mail to this
list [1].

b) I think the President and regional Vice-President should be able
to vote on motions tabled at the board meetings. This is presently
possible only for elected board members.

I am also for continuing our current practice of appointing our charter
members
(or external members, although there is no precedence for this) as
Officers for other committee (marketing, incubation, SAC, Geo4All, UN,
etc.)
and software PSCs.

Current board members Helena, Angelos and Anita were nominated as regional
Vice-President at our last board meeting. Anita had declined. Therefore,
I would like to propose the following new motions.

MOT8: Helena to continue as regional Vice-President for the rest of
her term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
Maria at the board meenting held on 3 Nov. 2016)

MOT9: Appoint Angelos as our new regional Vice-President for the rest of
his term as elected Board member. (Nominated by Venka and seconded by
Maria at the board meeting held on 3 Nov. 2016 and also earlier on loomio)

Best

Venka

[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2016-November/014703.html


On 11/9/2016 3:56 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

We have now exhausted the three proposals put forth in the IRC meeting.

I would like to resume discussion, asking all board members to listen now
and compose a motion that that can be approved. In several cases the voting
process is shutting down conversation at the expense of communication.

Please take a moment to read why each motion was rejected, and what you
could do to open up communication with the parties that were forced to vote
"no".
--
Jody Garnett




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



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




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


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


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

Re: resuming discussion on vice-presidents and officers

Angelos Tzotsos
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
Hi all,

According to our bylaws:
"Section 5.1 Number and Qualifications. The officers of the corporation shall consist of a Chair of the Board, a President, a Secretary, and a Treasurer. Officers must be natural persons that the Board of Directors elects or appoints. Officers need not be Directors of the corporation and shall hold office at the discretion of the Board of Directors. Subject to these Bylaws, the Board of Directors may also elect or appoint one or more additional officers or assistant officers as it may deem convenient or necessary. Except as provided in these Bylaws, the Board of Directors shall fix the powers and duties of all officers."

Based on the above and also the fact that none of the motions were passed in the current discussions, I propose we move on as the bylaws state, with no further delays, accept the nomination of Dirk for VP (I second the nomination of Dirk) and move on with a vote.
In my opinion, if there is no consensus for a change, then we must make sure that the bylaws are followed. After reading the bylaws very carefully, I don't actually find points where current or previous board decisions diverted from the bylaws (besides the fact that we elect our board through electronic means and not during the AGM)
I believe that our Members are not enjoying this discussion and want to see the board moving forward to more important issues for our Organization.

Best regards,
Angelos

On 11/09/2016 01:50 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Current board members Helena, Angelos and Anita were nominated as regional
Vice-President at our last board meeting. Anita had declined. Therefore,
I would like to propose the following new motions.

We also had Dirk nominated.

...

I was treating the role of "President and Vice-President" more as covering
the responsibilities of "Executive officer" in keeping with our by-laws
(see Section 5.6). This is distinct from the role of "Chair of the
Board"(section 5.5) although we seem to be combining them.

Thank you for considering the role of charter members for other committees,
while I see what you are getting at it leaves me with some confusion:
a) the foundation lists "officers of the corporation": Chair of the Board,
a President, a Secretary, and a Treasurer
b) we have recognized additional officers over time (
http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/board_and_officers.html ). These
represents officers of our corporation (covered under our liability
insurance). By recognizing these individuals, in this capacity, they are
able to act in an official capacity for our organization (this save the
time/trouble of working through the board monthly meetings).

I think this is where we (me and you) are getting stuck on setting
a precedent. It does no good to ask me to rewrite the bylaws, as we would
just put off the conversation one level removed, and still be stuck on the
current task of electing officers. I am of course willing to rewrite bylaws
if it is of benefit.

End of the day:
- I want our officers recognized (and protected) equally
- I would like future boards to have a chance to cast a wide net when
recurituing volunteers
- I do not want the board members to be over taxed as volunteers
- I do not want the board to overreach in terms of responsibility

If the current board (or a future board) is more conformable having
officers that have can vote in the decision making process then it can
consider this when evaluating nominations any given year. There is of
course other ways to allow officers a say in what goes on ... setting up a
working group to tackle an issue on behalf of a board is an approach I
favour.

I do not want to trade a short term awkwardness with competing nominations
(as a board we are compelled to make the tough choices) for a long term
precedent that stifles growth.



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


-- 
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
OSGeo Charter Member
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos

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