Sorry - let me make it super clear that I'm not saying you've been an evil board! I am totally sure that everyone has acted in good faith. I'm only presenting it as a hypothetical reason why boards shouldn't be able to impose eligibility requirements that aren't in the constitution. So please understand, this isn't a criticism.
John On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 09:31, eli <[email protected]> wrote: > As far as I understand, it is by law not possible anymore to be elected as > director on a board in an Australian based company if the person doesn't > have a valid director ID. They state explicitly that you must have a valid > director id before being appointed. The person risks a fine of thousands > (and the organisation too), and it's a risk we cannot take, or at least the > majority of the board didn't want to take this year. We did in the past, as > the law is from 2022 and we were still adjusting to it, but we need a good > practice in place now, in my opinion. And moreover, we do have to follow > the rules, not great if we try to cut corners! When the constitution was > written, this requirement wasn't in place, that's why it hasn't been > included, I think? But it's now quite an important rule and we need to come > up with better solutions, but take it in consideration. > > I don't feel like we have been an 'evil' board trying to stop non > Australian people to get aboard by putting an arbitrary requirement here, > we just didn't realise in time how onerous - and expensive! - it is to even > start the process in a tight timeframe. We need to do better, with timing > and funding, but we cannot avoid this requirement. > > I have no idea what rescheduling an election would cost to the board > operations, as it would need to be rescheduled in at least a couple or > three months time, to give the people who failed to start the application > the time and support to get their ID sorted. I am personally happy to take > it in consideration, and I know a few other board members would agree, but > it feels to me not fair for the people that have applied and have fulfilled > all the steps. I think we need to address this very urgently, but for me it > would be fairer for everyone, and more open and transparent, to fix it for > next year and see if it improves participation from other countries than > Australia. > > Il giorno mar 3 dic 2024 alle ore 14:06 John Bryant <[email protected]> > ha scritto: > >> Thanks Elisa & Alex, I appreciate your candour. I agree there are things >> OO can do to make it easier. It's upsetting to learn three people agreed to >> be nominated to work on behalf of our community, but weren't able to. I >> understand everyone has acted in good faith with the best of intentions. >> >> I think there is a significant problem that needs to be addressed with >> some urgency, that is whether the board actually has the right to impose >> new eligibility requirements for nominations. The constitution basically >> says that members are eligible for appointment if they are a member of OO >> (s74), and that any member may nominate an eligible person (s79.3). >> >> The board is responsible for laying out and executing the process, but I >> don't believe the board has the right to impose additional eligibility >> requirements as part of this process. This makes sense, because an evil >> board could impose arbitrary requirements to entrench themselves, by >> excluding people they don't like (obviously not the intent here!). >> >> This very issue came up in the 2020 OO election >> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/2020-September/002342.html>, >> it was generally agreed that the board couldn't impose new eligibility >> restrictions above what's in the constitution, and the suggested >> restrictions were removed. >> >> If it were a moot point, it could be something to work on for next year, >> but the apparent outcome is that 1) three people have been unable to >> exercise their right to be nominated (assuming they're otherwise eligible), >> and 2) the membership is unable to exercise its right to vote on legitimate >> nominees. >> >> Perhaps one way to resolve this is to retrospectively strike the >> eligibility requirement, accept the nominations, and reschedule an election. >> >> John >> >> >> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 04:23, Alex Leith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi John >>> >>> I agree with your interpretation, in that you only need to have applied >>> for a director ID, not that you must hold one. >>> >>> We had three applicants from overseas, and none of the three were able >>> to tell us that they had applied by the cutoff date in time, so the >>> returning officer ruled them ineligible. >>> >>> For what it's worth, we discussed this at length, and thought about >>> allowing them into the pool anyway, but it was voted on, and it was decided >>> to take the recommendation of the returning officer, so we didn't need an >>> election, since we had six candidates and six places. >>> >>> We discussed what to do differently next time, and there was a >>> suggestion to have the election further after the conference, since we have >>> a big push at the conference. And we talked about supporting potential >>> candidates in their applications for a director ID, by offering to cover >>> the costs of postage and possibly translation of documents. >>> >>> I think we need to do more to make it easier for a non-Australian to be >>> on our Board, and I think our recommendations will go into the process >>> documents for the next election. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 at 06:42, John Bryant via Oceania < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Elisa, as I mentioned on Slack, thanks so much for your >>>> incredible year as chair, and I really enjoyed serving alongside you. >>>> >>>> Re Director ID, the government website says this: "If you plan to >>>> become a director, you must apply for a director ID before you’re >>>> appointed." It seems you don't need to have a DID in hand to be put >>>> forward for nomination. >>>> >>>> I think we've heard it's harder for non-Australians to *obtain* a DID, >>>> but the obligation is apparently only to *apply* before being >>>> appointed. Also it doesn't sound like the obligation is on OO, but on the >>>> individual. >>>> >>>> Maybe it would be more inclusive to leave it to people to apply only >>>> *after* they have been elected (and before they are appointed), rather >>>> than putting up a roadblock that may be unnecessary. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 at 06:32, eli via Oceania <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> As you have read in our secretary Renee’s email on Friday, we didn’t >>>>> need elections this year as we received 6 amazing nominations for 6 >>>>> available vacancies in the Board. I would like to share with you all some >>>>> very personal considerations about this (be aware: if it’s going to be a >>>>> long email!) >>>>> >>>>> It’s great for me to see we have a full board for next year. I’m very >>>>> happy to see both familiar faces and new people stepping up and deciding >>>>> to >>>>> sacrifice a bit of their time and energy to help grow our community. >>>>> I personally want to thank Ponsyano and Renee for taking excellent >>>>> care of this year’s nominations and election process, especially >>>>> considering it was their first ride with it! >>>>> >>>>> My bestest wishes to Ana, Dani, and Nick for their first term as board >>>>> members—I’m really looking forward to working with you! Also, thanks again >>>>> to Alex, Ewen and Jonah for deciding to stick around for another term. >>>>> Your >>>>> work in the community is incredibly important, and we’re all glad you’ll >>>>> be >>>>> with us next year too. >>>>> >>>>> It has been a pleasure—and a challenge! —being the chair this year. >>>>> Thanks for the trust you have given me and for the many supportive and >>>>> encouraging messages you’ve sent: it feels great to know that you all care >>>>> about the work we’re trying to do! Please don’t ever stop sending any kind >>>>> of feedback; we can only learn from our errors if we are aware of them. >>>>> >>>>> Speaking of things that still don’t work, I want to address one that >>>>> still worries me: the ASIC Director ID requirement for new directors. For >>>>> those who aren’t aware, Australian rules require everyone applying for a >>>>> director position to obtain a specific Director ID. This process is very >>>>> easy, quick and straightforward for Australian citizens but lengthy and >>>>> expensive for everyone else. >>>>> >>>>> As the current chair, I feel I have failed to find a viable solution >>>>> for this year’s elections, which meant only Australian candidates could be >>>>> successfully nominated. While I’m excited to work with the new board >>>>> members, who are amazing and dedicated to the community, I feel that not >>>>> making the process easier for people outside Australia has failed our >>>>> founding principles of equality and diversification and it really upsets >>>>> me. Oceania is full of incredibly rich culture, and an almost only >>>>> Australian board is by far not a full representation of it, in my opinion. >>>>> >>>>> For this reason, I promise we will work harder to find a better >>>>> solution or at least a workaround for next year. The resigning board has >>>>> already started brainstorming interesting ideas, including opening >>>>> nominations months before the elections and helping non-Australian >>>>> candidates with the process, both through mentoring and covering any >>>>> related expenses. You can get a better idea of what we’ve discussed in the >>>>> last meeting’s minutes, which will be uploaded to the wiki this week. >>>>> >>>>> We still need to work on improving the process as much as possible, >>>>> but rest assured we’re taking it very seriously. Of course, I am very >>>>> interested in hearing any feedback or ideas you might have on this matter. >>>>> I personally hope that those who couldn’t complete their nomination >>>>> applications due to the strict timeline we imposed (and I deeply apologize >>>>> for this) and the complexity of the ID process will still be interested in >>>>> supporting us and trying again next year, as well as all the other >>>>> non-Australian members who were put off by the process. We need all of >>>>> Oceania to make OSGeo Oceania work! >>>>> >>>>> Have a lovely end of the year, enjoy the well-deserved holiday break, >>>>> and to the new members, welcome aboard! I’m looking forward to our first >>>>> board meeting together on Friday, December 13th! >>>>> >>>>> Ciao, Elisa >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Oceania mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Oceania mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Alex Leith* >>> m: +61 419 189 050 >>> https://auspatious.com >>> >> > > -- > Potrebbe andar peggio...potrebbe piovere! >
_______________________________________________ Oceania mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
