Change the membership approval requirement from unanimous agreement of MWG, to agreement of two or more members of the MWG.
In particular we change the following sentence from:
Ratify the application if and when there is unanimous agreement among the MWG.
to
Ratify the application if and when there is agreement from two or more MWG members.
Email from Eduardo 04/11/2020
The MWG
The MWG currently comprises of myself, Emma Hain, David Garcia, and Daniel Silk. Adam Steer was on the MWG as well, but had to step down due to other commitments and his move to Norway. One of the criteria in the Membership Policy is that at least two board members take part in the MWG. Emma and Daniel currently fill this role. We will need to review participation following the board election to make sure we still meet this requirement.
I would like to invite members to take part in the MWG after the election to get new people involved with OSGeo Oceania.
Review process for membership applications
The current process requires each member of the MWG to make a decision on the application before we can finalise the application status. This can introduce significant delay as one vote can stop the approval from going ahead. As it stands, I think we are failing to live up to our Membership Policy "it should be easy to join". I see two solutions to this:
1. I could try to chase people up more regularly to get a decision.
2. We could set the membership approval requirement to 2 people of the MWG as long as no objections have been raised over a 2 week period. This gives members of the MWG chance to review the application and raise objections, whilst also ensuring decisions come through in a timely manner.
Poll Created Fri 6 Nov 2020 6:14AM
Change the membership approval requirement from unanimous agreement of MWG, to agreement of two or more members of the MWG. Closed Mon 9 Nov 2020 6:03AM
In particular we change the following sentence from:
Ratify the application if and when there is unanimous agreement among the MWG.
to
Ratify the application if and when there is agreement from two or more MWG members.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 80.0% | 4 |
|
| Abstain | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Disagree | 20.0% | 1 |
|
|
| Undecided | 0% | 1 |
|
5 of 6 people have participated (83%)
Martin Tomko
Fri 6 Nov 2020 6:15AM
I agree in the current situation, but believe this should be worded broader for the future, when the membership of the committee exceeds at least 4. Needs to be at least 50%, I would imagine.
dionne
Sat 7 Nov 2020 7:18AM
I think the changes to the process will make it much easier to progress membership applications faster and make becoming a member a quicker process.
Adam
Fri 6 Nov 2020 6:15AM
I am voting no because I want to also have the opportunity to vote 'yes' on the other option which was set out - the person taking the chair role in the membership working group proactively seeking input, and a more nuanced decision tool (Like Martin, ratio of yes - or even 'no objection within N weeks of an e-mail requesting MWG approval')
Daniel Silk
Sun 8 Nov 2020 10:43PM
Priority needs to be given to resolving long lived membership applications before the upcoming election.