Hi Eli I’m also not an expert, but that website says:
“*If you plan to become a director, you must apply for a director ID before you’re appointed.*” You must APPLY not that you must already hold one. It is an onerous process, which is why we should start now helping those that would like to be a director who are not Australians to apply now. Cheers, *Alex Leith* m: +61 419 189 050 https://auspatious.com On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 at 11:21 pm, eli <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Greg, I feel for your concern and totally agree with you that a > good robust review on the processes of OSGeo is due. Which is a good thing, > meaning we are alive and evolving and happy to 'kill our darlings' for a > better outcome. It is a slow process as it needs work and therefore time > and energy from a bunch of volunteers. But it is very important and must be > done. > > Like Alex just said better, I personally don't agree with the comments > about that being done 'behind closed doors' as this year the board has put > transparency very high in priorities and we have published all the meeting > minutes, kept board meetings open to everyone, and published all the > election requirements early in the year on the various channels. Honestly, > nobody simply picked up this problem till it became a problem last week. > And we should have, I should have, so I'm sorry about it. But nothing was > hidden. Hence also my initial email. > > Also, I'm definitely NOT an expert here and Australians and residents know > definitely better, but it states clearly here that you have to have a > director id before being appointed: > > https://www.abrs.gov.au/director-identification-number/who-needs-apply-and-when > As Alex pointed out, this is above our constitution and I think we did the > right thing to acknowledge it. > > > Il giorno mar 3 dic 2024 alle ore 15:06 Greg Lauer < > [email protected]> ha scritto: > >> I share John's concern that three potential directors have not been >> afforded the right to be elected. I am also somewhat concerned that a >> decision of this magnitude happened behind closed doors and was not >> discussed with the community in general. That said I do accept that things >> do get a bit crazy around this time of year and that the Board was working >> to resolve in what they thought was a fair and equitable way. >> >> The Directors ID process is really a mess, and is not helped by vague and >> unclear documentation from the Australian government, and the ridiculous >> requirements for non-Australia residents. Unfortunately, we will all >> interpret the rules differently, and really the only way to confirm a >> correct interpretation is a court case. My interpretation is that to be an >> ASIC registered Director you would need to have submitted a complete >> application before you can act as a Director. Ask 100 people and you will >> get 100 different interpretations. >> >> John comments that the board shouldn't have the right to impose new >> eligibility requirements for nominations. I see his point of view and his >> concerns about imposing arbitrary requirements. That said we have an issue >> in that to meet Federal law in Australia (however we interpret that re >> Directors ID) and that (In my mind) trumps the Constitution. I (personally) >> feel that the Board should have some leeway in these types of decisions >> (but maybe be a bit more transparent). We need to remember that we are an >> all-volunteer organisation and reliant on people's time. >> >> Should we have a new election? I think a lesson has been learned here and >> I am not sure a new election will resolve this. I don't think there was any >> malicious intent in the decision and feel that the time would be better >> spent on preparing for the next election. >> >> What next? As well as reviewing the next election process, I think we >> need to go back to basics and review the appropriate structure for OSGeo >> Oceania. I feel the structure that we put together 5+ years ago may not be >> the appropriate structure now. From my point of view if we have to exclude >> passionate people to lead OSGeo Oceania from outside Australia because of >> arbitrary laws, then we have the wrong structure in place for OSGeo Oceania >> to grow and thrive in the region. >> >> Greg >> >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 8:06 PM John Bryant via Oceania < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Oceania mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania >>> >> > > -- > Potrebbe andar peggio...potrebbe piovere! >
_______________________________________________ Oceania mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
