Talk:Membership Rules - Revision history

Warmerdam: Talk:Proposed Membership Rules moved to Talk:Membership Rules: They are adopted now, not proposed.

2006-10-12T19:41:54Z

Talk:Proposed Membership Rules moved to Talk:Membership Rules: They are adopted now, not proposed.

Wiki-Mpg: /* Nomination possible by anybody */

2006-06-22T20:59:50Z

Nomination possible by anybody

Warmerdam: add notes on democratic problems.

2006-06-22T14:04:37Z

add notes on democratic problems.

Arnulf: Nomination possible by anybody

2006-06-22T11:52:38Z

Nomination possible by anybody

Wiki-Emj: Democratic Problems

2006-06-22T10:59:28Z

Democratic Problems

Warmerdam: removed outdated discussion.

2006-06-22T01:39:00Z

removed outdated discussion.

Wiki-Mpg at 05:47, 7 March 2006

2006-03-07T05:47:39Z

Warmerdam: added thoughts on sponsorship

2006-03-06T16:26:25Z

added thoughts on sponsorship

New page

The discussion of voting on '''sponsors''' is quite different than the contribution based concept of sponsorship in the [[Fundraising]] page. I am nervous about having any sort of member voted sponsorship class for fear it will undermine the fundraising role of sponsorship. --[[User:Warmerda|Warmerda]] 17:26, 6 March 2006 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:59, 22 June 2006
Line 28:		Line 28:

	If I remember correctly we came to the conclusion that anybody can nominate charter members? This would open up the elsewise somewhat incestuous process.		If I remember correctly we came to the conclusion that anybody can nominate charter members? This would open up the elsewise somewhat incestuous process.
		+
		+	-Arnulf (I think)
		+
		+
		+	I don't recall what we decided, I was just going by my notes (which could have been wrong)...
		+
		+	Personally, I think that since becoming a Member is free and self-selecting, it is very close to letting "anyone" nominate (remember, we're talking Members here, not Charter Members).
		+
		+	(Is there some value in "anonymous" nominations that I'm maybe missing?)
		+
		+	--[[User:Mpg\|mpg]] 22:59, 22 June 2006 (CEST)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Democratic Problems ==
@@ Line 17: / Line 16: @@
 [[User:Emj|Emj]] 12:59, 22 June 2006 (CEST)
 == Nomination possible by anybody ==
 If I remember correctly we came to the conclusion that anybody can nominate charter members? This would open up the elsewise somewhat incestuous process.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:52, 22 June 2006
Line 17:		Line 17:

	[[User:Emj\|Emj]] 12:59, 22 June 2006 (CEST)		[[User:Emj\|Emj]] 12:59, 22 June 2006 (CEST)
		+
		+	== Nomination possible by anybody ==
		+
		+	If I remember correctly we came to the conclusion that anybody can nominate charter members? This would open up the elsewise somewhat incestuous process.

← Older revision	Revision as of 10:59, 22 June 2006
Line 1:	Line 1:

	+
	+	== Democratic Problems ==
	+
	+	First I want to say that there needs to be a section on exclusion of charter members.
	+
	+	Secondly abit flamey, but please bear with me:
	+	I base these thoughts on a dislike of what is called ''do-acracy'' in the [[FAQ]]. Since there are 45 charter members of OSGeo at the moment, the organization is already large enough to have problems. '''OR''' not, perhaps you will always get along fine and dandy.
	+
	+	One problem is that the charter members are the only ones that can elect board members and new charter members. The reason:
	+
	+	''it would be technically possible for a group of self-interested Members to "hijack" the Board[..]turning it away from our basic goals and principles''
	+
	+	What you protect here are the founding/charter members economic rights, not the foundations principles. It's a democratic right to be able to hijack, and it's the job of the constitution to protect the principles. The principles should no be upheld by a friendship club.
	+
	+	The criteria for being a charter member are good but very vague. How can one decide all those things, it will make the application process very beaurocratic, or biased for people that already know charter members.
	+
	+	[[User:Emj\|Emj]] 12:59, 22 June 2006 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 22 June 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The discussion of voting on '''sponsors''' is quite different than the contribution based concept of sponsorship in the [[Fundraising]] page. I am nervous about having any sort of member voted sponsorship class for fear it will undermine the fundraising role of sponsorship. --[[User:Warmerda\|Warmerda]] 17:26, 6 March 2006 (CET)

−	~~Agreed; I've just whacked most of that section. --[[User:Mpg\|mpg]] 06:47, 7 March 2006 (CET)~~

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:41, 12 October 2006
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:47, 7 March 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The discussion of voting on '''sponsors''' is quite different than the contribution based concept of sponsorship in the [[Fundraising]] page. I am nervous about having any sort of member voted sponsorship class for fear it will undermine the fundraising role of sponsorship. --[[User:Warmerda\|Warmerda]] 17:26, 6 March 2006 (CET)		The discussion of voting on '''sponsors''' is quite different than the contribution based concept of sponsorship in the [[Fundraising]] page. I am nervous about having any sort of member voted sponsorship class for fear it will undermine the fundraising role of sponsorship. --[[User:Warmerda\|Warmerda]] 17:26, 6 March 2006 (CET)
		+
		+	Agreed; I've just whacked most of that section. --[[User:Mpg\|mpg]] 06:47, 7 March 2006 (CET)