Review of 2017 Election Process

Email from CRO is here: https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2017-October/010750.html

Containing the following request:

In any case, the board should have an opinion before the results are made public. To give time to board members to react, I plan to release the results of the vote on Thursday 17:00 GMT. If needed, more time can be allocated. However, deciding on the way to go further after seeing the results can only escalate the possible conflict of interest.

Email thread summary:

Maria Brovelli

Anyhow I agree with her: no need for new elections.

Vasile Craciunescu

obviously I must abstain

Jody Garnett

I would like to avoid holding another election due to the frustration this process has placed on our membership.
* As a candidate seeking reelection I would like to vote +0 to accept the election result as provided.
* If required, due to electronic voting rules in our bylaws I am willing to change this vote to a +1.

Anita Graser

+1 "not to start new elections" for the reasons summarized by Vasile

Helena Mitasova

I mostly agree with Michael and I don't think we should repeat the election for the many reasons that CRO has highlighted. The rules for the next election will need to be revised and updated by the new board in response to CRO comments and suggestions.

Venkatesh Raghavan

So, I feel, that the best option for the CRO would be to continue with the voting using the present ballot. Which would mean that the request for withdrawal is held in abeyance by the CRO until the voting is completed.

Sanghee Shin

I think both CRO and board do not have the right not to accept the request of withdrawal from any nominees at least that is based on free will.

Michael Smith

Finally I agree with the decision to not redo the election. If there was something that interferes with integrity of the election, then there would be cause but these are just, frankly, almost to be expected issues. We are just fortunate that we haven’t been as affected by these in previous years.

Angelos Tzotsos

no response

Dear All, it was not me but Maria Arias de Reyna who added the comments (look at the mail!). Anyhow I agree with her: no need for new elections.

sorry! so many wonderful Maria's in our community, summary updated with you response.

The following motion was raised during IRC meeting with established quorum:

• anitagraser: MOT1: Motion to accept the CRO report and to declare the 2017 Board member elections valid

With response from those present:

• kalxas_: MOT1: +1 (second motion)
• vcraciunescu: MOT1: 0
• sanghee: MOT1: +1
• msmitherdc[m]: MOT1: +1
• anitagraser: MOT1: +1 (initial motion)
• jgarnett: MOT1: +1

Motion passed:

• vcraciunescu: I declare MOT1 accepted

Jody you forgot to log your vote in the above minutes.

Thanks fixed.

For the record, full IRC meeting logs at: http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2017-10-26.log

With respect to IRC discussion our by-laws has several relevant sections:

• Section 3.6. Resignation and Removal of Directors.
• Section 3.7. Vacancies
• Section 8.9. Voting
• Section 8.11. Action by Members Without a Meeting.