Please add questions to the elections process here and also add suggestions how we can improve the process. This page is open for anybody. If you are interested in helping to clean up ambiguities in out Elections and membership processes, please add yourself to the list below.
Does OSGeo have a register of current members
- Yes: http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/members/voting_members.html
- See Also: OSGeo_Advocate which provides a brief profile of many of the OSGeo members
Does the Foundation know who voted and who became inactive?
- Yes. This information is maintained by the OSGeo secretary and reflected on the Charter Membership list which is plublicly available (so far no drops-outs).
- All Charter Members are contacted before elections. During the election period members are reminded several times.
- After elections Charter Members who did not participate are contacted and informed if their status has changed to dormant due to inactivity.
Does anybody understand our bylaws?
- Do we need to keep them as they are?
- Is there immediate need to change them?
Section 7.7 Automatic Termination.
- Currently Charter Members who have failed to take part in three consecutive elections are moved to dormant. There is no other regular interaction with or between the Charter Members, therefore there are also no meeting minutes or similar to record attendance.
- Actually the stated criterion is 'participated in meetings' which is very different from voting.
- Who can make it a motion for consideration by the board? Find out, if not: decide, then document.
- Obviously all board members
- Maybe also all OSGeo Charter Members, Members, participants,
Role of the CRO
The Chief Returning Officer administers elections.
- Is the CRO allowed to nominate members? Thsi is unclear. There has been one complaint in 2012 but no further action was taken. To avoid further discussion the CRO in 2013 (Arnulf Christl) decided to refrain from nominating individuals.
- Is the CRO allowed to take part in the elections (given she is a Charter Member at the time of the elections)?
- Yes (otherwise it may be hard to find anybody taking on the job)
Please add your questions, ideas, answers.
Amending elections and membership process and fix bylaws
The bylaws, election and membership process of OSGeo need to be consistent. Currently they differ considerably and are amended on the fly during the process which is not good practice. Pleae add yourself to this list if you are interested in leading an effort to clean this up and make it consistent. Final approval of changes will require a successful formal board motion. Changes to the bylaws then also require a majority vote of the existing Charter Membership so this is not an easy thing.
- Protect the integrity of the Foundation
- Make the membership process as transparent and open as possible
- Amend the bylaws to be as simple as possible
- Observe legal background
Please add if you find more!
Please add yourself. If the board thinks it is necessary this might become a small sub committee with official endorsement by the board.
Several notes have been added to other Wiki pages. Please collate them here for further reference and DELETE THE OTHER VERSION.
From Proposed Board Election Procedure
Why no seconder? First time round, it was interesting and perhaps useful as a recommendation system to members who arent involved in board candidates' communities...
What is an example of a "suitable random method", are we putting lavalamps in front of webcams or throwing runes or reading tealeaves?
Seconders are fine, and can add weight to a nomination, but it isn't clear they need to be officially part of the process.
Lavalamps, runes or tealeaves would all be ok as long as the CRO (aka election official) is convinced the method is adequately random. Do you really think we need to spell out a method?
--Warmerda 02:34, 23 March 2007 (CET)
- I prefer using spreadsheet rand() function and sorting a list to get random choices :) My runes are still packed away in some box.
- I think the timing windows could be a bit tight and we should instead provide a maximum time window or address the timing issues as a general guideline only. For example, 10 day or 2 week periods could be more useful for ensuring maximum participation despite holidays, etc. I'm thinking specifically of CRO tasks that could need a fair bit of time. I.e. it may take more than 1 week just to verify nominees and it to track down members who haven't voted, etc.
- Similar to charter member requirements, I'd like to add "Already involved in or supporting OSGeo activities or projects" added to Positive Attributes section. This is even more important for board nominees than charter members, in my opinion, since the past ability to be actively involved and able to participate is important.
--Tyler now(), 23 March 2007
Add Link to Source Page
copy and paste to this "template"
Other random suggestions to improve the election process
- August doesn't seem a good time for elections, many people are on holidays, with limited access to the internet, and keeping track on what is going on in OSGeo becomes difficult. Just a thought.. why not September? --Madi