Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Cameron Shorter

As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to approved revised text for conference committee text:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter

Decisions

  1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.
  2. Voting will use convention of:
    • +1 : For
    • +0: Mildly for
    • 0: Indifferent
    • -0: Mildly against
    • -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and alternative proposal.
  3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
  4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.
  5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.
  6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
  7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.

FOSS4G Selection

  1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all.
  2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members.
  3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s recommendation.
  4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a decision.

Membership

  1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a motion and vote.
  2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
  3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or related conferences.
  4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list shall be re-visited.
    1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
    2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the conference committee.
    3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for re-election.
    4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing conference committee and board members who are not already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.
  5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee chair.

Votes for the motion

  1. Steven Feldman
  2. Eli Adam
  3. Peter Batty
  4. David Bitner
  5. Maria Brovelli
  6. Jachym Cepicky
  7. Vasile Craciunescu
  8. David Fawcett positive words
  9. Gavin Fleming
  10. Darrell Fuhriman
  11. Helena Mitasova
  12. Claude Philipona
  13. Venkatesh Raghavan
  14. Paul Ramsey
  15. Cameron Shorter
  16. Sanghee Shin
  17. Till Adams
  18. Jeroen Ticheler



On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members

On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
+1, I like the compromises!

On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents (source in subversion)


On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Maria Antonia Brovelli

+1 for Motion 3


Thanks a lot Cameron!!!

Happy week to everybody

Maria




----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Professor of GIS and Remote Sensing
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)" http://www2.isprs.org/commissions/comm4/wg4.htmlBoard of Directors of OSGeo; GeoForAll Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET Advisory Board


UN-GGIM Italy, UN-GGIM Academic Network Task Team, UN OpenGIS Initiative (Chair of the Capacity Building WG)


Sol Katz Award 2015

 

P.zza Leonardo da Vinci, 32 - Building 3 - 20133 Milano (Italy)

Tel. +39-02-23996242 - Mob. +39-328-0023867,  [hidden email][hidden email]





 




Da: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> per conto di Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Inviato: domenica 29 gennaio 2017 21.00
A: conference
Oggetto: [OSGeo-Conf] Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process
 

As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to approved revised text for conference committee text:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter

Decisions

  1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.
  2. Voting will use convention of:
    • +1 : For
    • +0: Mildly for
    • 0: Indifferent
    • -0: Mildly against
    • -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and alternative proposal.
  3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
  4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.
  5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.
  6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
  7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.

FOSS4G Selection

  1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all.
  2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members.
  3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s recommendation.
  4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a decision.

Membership

  1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a motion and vote.
  2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
  3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or related conferences.
  4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list shall be re-visited.
    1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
    2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the conference committee.
    3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for re-election.
    4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing conference committee and board members who are not already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.
  5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee chair.

Votes for the motion

  1. Steven Feldman
  2. Eli Adam
  3. Peter Batty
  4. David Bitner
  5. Maria Brovelli
  6. Jachym Cepicky
  7. Vasile Craciunescu
  8. David Fawcett positive words
  9. Gavin Fleming
  10. Darrell Fuhriman
  11. Helena Mitasova
  12. Claude Philipona
  13. Venkatesh Raghavan
  14. Paul Ramsey
  15. Cameron Shorter
  16. Sanghee Shin
  17. Till Adams
  18. Jeroen Ticheler



On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members

On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
+1, I like the compromises!

On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents (source in subversion)


On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Darrell Fuhriman
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter

On Jan 29, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to approved revised text for conference committee text:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter



+1 from me.

d.



_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to
> approved revised text for conference committee text:
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>

+1 Eli
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

David Fawcett
+1 David.

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to
> approved revised text for conference committee text:
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>

+1 Eli
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

David William Bitner-3
+1 Bitner

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:24 AM, David Fawcett <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 David.

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to
> approved revised text for conference committee text:
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>

+1 Eli
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev



--
************************************
David William Bitner
dbSpatial LLC
612-424-9932

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Peter Batty
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
+1 Peter

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to approved revised text for conference committee text:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter

Decisions

  1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.
  2. Voting will use convention of:
    • +1 : For
    • +0: Mildly for
    • 0: Indifferent
    • -0: Mildly against
    • -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and alternative proposal.
  3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
  4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.
  5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.
  6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
  7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.

FOSS4G Selection

  1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all.
  2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members.
  3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s recommendation.
  4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a decision.

Membership

  1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a motion and vote.
  2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
  3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or related conferences.
  4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list shall be re-visited.
    1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
    2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the conference committee.
    3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for re-election.
    4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing conference committee and board members who are not already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.
  5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee chair.

Votes for the motion

  1. Steven Feldman
  2. Eli Adam
  3. Peter Batty
  4. David Bitner
  5. Maria Brovelli
  6. Jachym Cepicky
  7. Vasile Craciunescu
  8. David Fawcett positive words
  9. Gavin Fleming
  10. Darrell Fuhriman
  11. Helena Mitasova
  12. Claude Philipona
  13. Venkatesh Raghavan
  14. Paul Ramsey
  15. Cameron Shorter
  16. Sanghee Shin
  17. Till Adams
  18. Jeroen Ticheler



On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members

On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
+1, I like the compromises!

On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents (source in subversion)


On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M <a href="tel:+61%20419%20142%20254" value="+61419142254" target="_blank">+61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

stevenfeldman
In reply to this post by Eli Adam
+1
______
Steven


On 29 Jan 2017, at 20:00, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to
approved revised text for conference committee text:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter




_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Sanghee Shin
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter

+1 from me.

 

Thanks Cameron for your great works!

 

Kind regards,

신상희 드림
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com

 

보낸 사람: [hidden email]
보낸 날짜: 2017 1 30일 월요일 오전 5:01
받는 사람: [hidden email]
제목: [OSGeo-Conf] Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

 

As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to approved revised text for conference committee text:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter

Decisions

1.    Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.

2.    Voting will use convention of:

·        +1 : For

·        +0: Mildly for

·        0: Indifferent

·        -0: Mildly against

·        -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and alternative proposal.

3.    Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.

4.    For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.

5.    The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.

6.    The result will be clearly declared afterwards.

7.    Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.

FOSS4G Selection

1.    All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all.

2.    The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members.

3.    The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s recommendation.

4.    Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a decision.

Membership

1.    To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a motion and vote.

2.    The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.

3.    The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or related conferences.

4.    Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list shall be re-visited.

1.   Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.

2.   Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the conference committee.

3.   If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for re-election.

4.   Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing conference committee and board members who are not already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.

5.    Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee chair.

Votes for the motion

1.    Steven Feldman

2.    Eli Adam

3.    Peter Batty

4.    David Bitner

5.    Maria Brovelli

6.    Jachym Cepicky

7.    Vasile Craciunescu

8.    David Fawcett positive words

9.    Gavin Fleming

10. Darrell Fuhriman

11. Helena Mitasova

12. Claude Philipona

13. Venkatesh Raghavan

14. Paul Ramsey

15. Cameron Shorter

16. Sanghee Shin

17. Till Adams

18. Jeroen Ticheler




On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members

 

On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:

+1, I like the compromises!

 

On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents (source in subversion)

 

On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:

I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

 

Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

 

MT



-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

 


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Till Adams-3
In reply to this post by Peter Batty
+1 Till


Am 30.01.2017 18:19, schrieb Peter Batty:
+1 Peter

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to approved revised text for conference committee text:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter

Decisions

  1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.
  2. Voting will use convention of:
    • +1 : For
    • +0: Mildly for
    • 0: Indifferent
    • -0: Mildly against
    • -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and alternative proposal.
  3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
  4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.
  5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.
  6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
  7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.

FOSS4G Selection

  1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all.
  2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members.
  3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s recommendation.
  4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a decision.

Membership

  1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a motion and vote.
  2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
  3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or related conferences.
  4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list shall be re-visited.
    1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
    2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the conference committee.
    3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for re-election.
    4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing conference committee and board members who are not already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.
  5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee chair.

Votes for the motion

  1. Steven Feldman
  2. Eli Adam
  3. Peter Batty
  4. David Bitner
  5. Maria Brovelli
  6. Jachym Cepicky
  7. Vasile Craciunescu
  8. David Fawcett positive words
  9. Gavin Fleming
  10. Darrell Fuhriman
  11. Helena Mitasova
  12. Claude Philipona
  13. Venkatesh Raghavan
  14. Paul Ramsey
  15. Cameron Shorter
  16. Sanghee Shin
  17. Till Adams
  18. Jeroen Ticheler



On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members

On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
+1, I like the compromises!

On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents (source in subversion)


On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:+61%20419%20142%20254" value="+61419142254" target="_blank">+61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev



_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Paul Ramsey
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
+1 Paul

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to approved revised text for conference committee text:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter

Decisions

  1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.
  2. Voting will use convention of:
    • +1 : For
    • +0: Mildly for
    • 0: Indifferent
    • -0: Mildly against
    • -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and alternative proposal.
  3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
  4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.
  5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.
  6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
  7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.

FOSS4G Selection

  1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all.
  2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members.
  3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s recommendation.
  4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a decision.

Membership

  1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a motion and vote.
  2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
  3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or related conferences.
  4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list shall be re-visited.
    1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
    2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the conference committee.
    3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for re-election.
    4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing conference committee and board members who are not already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.
  5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee chair.

Votes for the motion

  1. Steven Feldman
  2. Eli Adam
  3. Peter Batty
  4. David Bitner
  5. Maria Brovelli
  6. Jachym Cepicky
  7. Vasile Craciunescu
  8. David Fawcett positive words
  9. Gavin Fleming
  10. Darrell Fuhriman
  11. Helena Mitasova
  12. Claude Philipona
  13. Venkatesh Raghavan
  14. Paul Ramsey
  15. Cameron Shorter
  16. Sanghee Shin
  17. Till Adams
  18. Jeroen Ticheler



On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members

On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
+1, I like the compromises!

On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents (source in subversion)


On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M <a href="tel:+61%20419%20142%20254" value="+61419142254" target="_blank">+61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Vasile Crăciunescu
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
+1 Vasile

Thank you, Cameron!

Best,
Vasile

On 1/29/17 10:00 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

> As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to
> approved revised text for conference committee text:
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>
>
>   Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter
>
>
>     Decisions
>
>  1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes
>     will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count
>     toward decisions.
>  2. Voting will use convention of:
>       * +1 : For
>       * +0: Mildly for
>       * 0: Indifferent
>       * -0: Mildly against
>       * -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a
>         reason and alternative proposal.
>  3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a
>     clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business
>     days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
>  4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum
>     of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter
>     participation.
>  5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to
>     address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where
>     necessary.
>  6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
>  7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or
>     use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.
>
>
>     FOSS4G Selection
>
>  1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the
>     list for open comment by all.
>  2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of
>     conference committee members.
>  3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference
>     committee’s recommendation.
>  4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is
>     expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is
>     part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is
>     employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude
>     themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a
>     disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the
>     committee chair has the authority to make a decision.
>
>
>     Membership
>
>  1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced
>     people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs
>     (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most
>     recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member
>     but still requires a motion and vote.
>  2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from
>     the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
>  3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally
>     attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G
>     or related conferences.
>  4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership
>     list shall be re-visited.
>      1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on
>         the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of
>         attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
>      2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto
>         the conference committee.
>      3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G
>         chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair
>         positions shall be up for re-election.
>      4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by
>         the existing conference committee and board members who are not
>         already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote
>         Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for
>         up to the number of positions available.
>  5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by
>     email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will
>     be selected by the committee chair.
>
>
>     Votes for the motion
>
>  1. Steven Feldman <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Stevenfeldman>
>  2. Eli Adam <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:EliL>
>  3. Peter Batty <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Pmbatty>
>  4. David Bitner <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Bitner>
>  5. Maria Brovelli <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Maria>
>  6. Jachym Cepicky <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Jachym>
>  7. Vasile Craciunescu <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Vasile>
>  8. David Fawcett positive words
>  9. Gavin Fleming <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:GFleming>
> 10. Darrell Fuhriman
> 11. Helena Mitasova <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Helena>
> 12. Claude Philipona
> 13. Venkatesh Raghavan <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Venkat>
> 14. Paul Ramsey <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Pwramsey3>
> 15. Cameron Shorter <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Camerons>
> 16. Sanghee Shin <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Sanghee>
> 17. Till Adams <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Till_Adams>
> 18. Jeroen Ticheler
>
>
>
>
> On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> Conference committee,
>>
>> Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference
>> committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and
>> Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].
>>
>> Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you
>> think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing
>> to be changed.
>>
>> Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably
>> all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion
>> as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up
>> to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).
>>
>> The changes include:
>>
>> * There is no set number of people on the committee, just a
>> requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50%
>> of the committee.
>>
>> * Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to
>> try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all)
>> committee members to vote.
>>
>> * A number of other minor tweaks to the text.
>>
>> Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the
>> conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10
>> more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16
>> members [2] listed.
>>
>> Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the
>> committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>>
>>
>> [2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
>
> On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
>> +1, I like the compromises!
>
> On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go
>> into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document
>> myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents
>> (source in subversion)
>>
>>
>> On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
>>> I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1
>>> of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation
>>> did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one
>>> proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals
>>> _not_ be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing
>>> cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them
>>> publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017
>>> competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first
>>> proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late
>>> submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before
>>> submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017,
>>> but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this
>>> to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1
>>> would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the
>>> proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before
>>> the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day
>>> following the deadline."
>>>
>>> Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
>>>
>>> MT
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>


--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Vasile Crăciunescu
geo-spatial.org: An elegant place for sharing geoKnowledge & geoData
http://www.geo-spatial.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/geo-spatial
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Gavin Fleming-4
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
+1

On 29/01/2017 22:00, Cameron Shorter wrote:

As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to approved revised text for conference committee text:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter

Decisions

  1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.
  2. Voting will use convention of:
    • +1 : For
    • +0: Mildly for
    • 0: Indifferent
    • -0: Mildly against
    • -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and alternative proposal.
  3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
  4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.
  5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.
  6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
  7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.

FOSS4G Selection

  1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all.
  2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members.
  3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s recommendation.
  4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a decision.

Membership

  1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a motion and vote.
  2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
  3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or related conferences.
  4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list shall be re-visited.
    1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
    2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the conference committee.
    3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for re-election.
    4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing conference committee and board members who are not already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.
  5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee chair.

Votes for the motion

  1. Steven Feldman
  2. Eli Adam
  3. Peter Batty
  4. David Bitner
  5. Maria Brovelli
  6. Jachym Cepicky
  7. Vasile Craciunescu
  8. David Fawcett positive words
  9. Gavin Fleming
  10. Darrell Fuhriman
  11. Helena Mitasova
  12. Claude Philipona
  13. Venkatesh Raghavan
  14. Paul Ramsey
  15. Cameron Shorter
  16. Sanghee Shin
  17. Till Adams
  18. Jeroen Ticheler



On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members

On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
+1, I like the compromises!

On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents (source in subversion)


On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Fleming - Joint MD - PrGISc [PGP1234]
Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
* Desktop GIS programming services
* Geospatial web development
* GIS Training
* Consulting Services
Skype: phlemingo
Office: +27(0)878092702
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kartoza = Linfiniti ∪ Afrispatial

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Helena, Jeroen,

I acknowledge that you both have offered to step down from the OSGeo
Marketing Committee.

Before doing so, I'd like to note that based on the revised voting rules
that are being considered, there will be sufficient space for all
previous members to remain on the committee. So if you would like to
remain, your position on the committee would be welcome.

And as always, opinions of non-members will be welcomed and considered,
even if a vote is not counted in the final voting.

Warm regards, Cameron


On 1/2/17 5:11 pm, Jeroen Ticheler wrote:

> Hi Cameron,
> Same thing here. Not on the committee anymore.
> Cheers,
> Jeroen
>
> _________________________
> Jeroen Ticheler
> Mooienhof 21
> 7512EE Enschede
> Tel: +31 (0)6 81286572
>
>> Op 31 jan. 2017 om 22:48 heeft Helena Mitasova <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Cameron,
>>
>> I am not on a conference committee (and the mailing list) list anymore
>> so I am not getting the emails and therefore my vote, if it is still needed, is 0.
>>
>> Helena
>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jachym, Vasile, Gavin, Helena, Claude, Venka, Paul, Jeroen,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if you have seen this email come through? Would you mind replying to the conference committee list with your vote.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Cameron
>>>
>>>> On 30/01/2017 7:00 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>> As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to approve revised text for conference committee text:
>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>>>> Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter
>>>> Decisions
>>>>     • Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.
>>>>     • Voting will use convention of:
>>>>         • +1 : For
>>>>         • +0: Mildly for
>>>>         • 0: Indifferent
>>>>         • -0: Mildly against
>>>>         • -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and alternative proposal.
>>>>     • Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
>>>>     • For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.
>>>>     • The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.
>>>>     • The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
>>>>     • Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.
>>>> FOSS4G Selection
>>>>     • All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all.
>>>>     • The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members.
>>>>     • The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s recommendation.
>>>>     • Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a decision.
>>>> Membership
>>>>     • To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a motion and vote.
>>>>     • The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
>>>>     • The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or related conferences.
>>>>     • Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list shall be re-visited.
>>>>         • Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
>>>>         • Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the conference committee.
>>>>         • If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for re-election.
>>>>         • Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing conference committee and board members who are not already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.
>>>>     • Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee chair.
>>>> Votes for the motion
>>>>     • Steven Feldman
>>>>     • Eli Adam
>>>>     • Peter Batty
>>>>     • David Bitner
>>>>     • Maria Brovelli
>>>>     • Jachym Cepicky
>>>>     • Vasile Craciunescu
>>>>     • David Fawcett
>>>>     • Gavin Fleming
>>>>     • Darrell Fuhriman
>>>>     • Helena Mitasova
>>>>     • Claude Philipona
>>>>     • Venkatesh Raghavan
>>>>     • Paul Ramsey
>>>>     • Cameron Shorter
>>>>     • Sanghee Shin
>>>>     • Till Adams
>>>>     • Jeroen Ticheler
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>> Conference committee,
>>>>>
>>>>> Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).
>>>>>
>>>>> The changes include:
>>>>>
>>>>> * There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> * A number of other minor tweaks to the text.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
>>>>> On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
>>>>> +1, I like the compromises!
>>>>> On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents (source in subversion)
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
>>>>>> I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MT
>>>> --
>>>> Cameron Shorter
>>>> M +61 419 142 254
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Cameron Shorter
>>> M +61 419 142 254
>>>
>> Helena Mitasova
>> Professor at the Department of Marine,
>> Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
>> and Center for Geospatial Analytics
>> North Carolina State University
>> Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
>> [hidden email]
>> http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html
>>
>> "All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.”
>>

--
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Cameron Shorter
Oops, typo below. I meant the Conference Committee, not Marketing
Committee and mentioned below.


On 2/2/17 8:55 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

> Helena, Jeroen,
>
> I acknowledge that you both have offered to step down from the OSGeo
> Marketing Committee.
>
> Before doing so, I'd like to note that based on the revised voting
> rules that are being considered, there will be sufficient space for
> all previous members to remain on the committee. So if you would like
> to remain, your position on the committee would be welcome.
>
> And as always, opinions of non-members will be welcomed and
> considered, even if a vote is not counted in the final voting.
>
> Warm regards, Cameron
>
>
> On 1/2/17 5:11 pm, Jeroen Ticheler wrote:
>> Hi Cameron,
>> Same thing here. Not on the committee anymore.
>> Cheers,
>> Jeroen
>>
>> _________________________
>> Jeroen Ticheler
>> Mooienhof 21
>> 7512EE Enschede
>> Tel: +31 (0)6 81286572
>>
>>> Op 31 jan. 2017 om 22:48 heeft Helena Mitasova <[hidden email]>
>>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>> Cameron,
>>>
>>> I am not on a conference committee (and the mailing list) list anymore
>>> so I am not getting the emails and therefore my vote, if it is still
>>> needed, is 0.
>>>
>>> Helena
>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jachym, Vasile, Gavin, Helena, Claude, Venka, Paul, Jeroen,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if you have seen this email come through? Would you
>>>> mind replying to the conference committee list with your vote.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Cameron
>>>>
>>>>> On 30/01/2017 7:00 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>> As per below, could all the conference committee members please
>>>>> vote to approve revised text for conference committee text:
>>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter 
>>>>>
>>>>> Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter
>>>>> Decisions
>>>>>     • Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions.
>>>>> All votes will be noted, but only conference committee member
>>>>> votes count toward decisions.
>>>>>     • Voting will use convention of:
>>>>>         • +1 : For
>>>>>         • +0: Mildly for
>>>>>         • 0: Indifferent
>>>>>         • -0: Mildly against
>>>>>         • -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be
>>>>> accompanied by a reason and alternative proposal.
>>>>>     • Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all
>>>>> members in a clearly designated separate mail thread over a
>>>>> minimum of 2 business days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
>>>>>     • For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a
>>>>> minimum of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least
>>>>> 50% voter participation.
>>>>>     • The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically
>>>>> attempt to address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority
>>>>> vote where necessary.
>>>>>     • The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
>>>>>     • Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting
>>>>> service or use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC
>>>>> Chair.
>>>>> FOSS4G Selection
>>>>>     • All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be
>>>>> posted to the list for open comment by all.
>>>>>     • The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of
>>>>> conference committee members.
>>>>>     • The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference
>>>>> committee’s recommendation.
>>>>>     • Any committee member who has a potential conflict of
>>>>> interest is expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the
>>>>> committee who is part of a bidding team, intends to become part of
>>>>> the LOC or is employed by a company playing an active part in a
>>>>> bid should exclude themselves from voting in the selection
>>>>> process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential
>>>>> conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make
>>>>> a decision.
>>>>> Membership
>>>>>     • To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with
>>>>> experienced people, the committee aims for more than 50% of
>>>>> members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global
>>>>> events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will
>>>>> automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a
>>>>> motion and vote.
>>>>>     • The conference committee aims to retain a chair or
>>>>> vice-chair from the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
>>>>>     • The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open,
>>>>> ideally attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or
>>>>> Regional FOSS4G or related conferences.
>>>>>     • Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the
>>>>> membership list shall be re-visited.
>>>>>         • Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to
>>>>> continue on the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a
>>>>> number of attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
>>>>>         • Interested people may be suggested, or request to be
>>>>> voted onto the conference committee.
>>>>>         • If less than 50% of membership would be past global
>>>>> FOSS4G chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair
>>>>> positions shall be up for re-election.
>>>>>         • Election of conference committee members is by secret
>>>>> vote by the existing conference committee and board members who
>>>>> are not already members of the conference committee. Voters will
>>>>> vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes"
>>>>> for up to the number of positions available.
>>>>>     • Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or
>>>>> by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism
>>>>> will be selected by the committee chair.
>>>>> Votes for the motion
>>>>>     • Steven Feldman
>>>>>     • Eli Adam
>>>>>     • Peter Batty
>>>>>     • David Bitner
>>>>>     • Maria Brovelli
>>>>>     • Jachym Cepicky
>>>>>     • Vasile Craciunescu
>>>>>     • David Fawcett
>>>>>     • Gavin Fleming
>>>>>     • Darrell Fuhriman
>>>>>     • Helena Mitasova
>>>>>     • Claude Philipona
>>>>>     • Venkatesh Raghavan
>>>>>     • Paul Ramsey
>>>>>     • Cameron Shorter
>>>>>     • Sanghee Shin
>>>>>     • Till Adams
>>>>>     • Jeroen Ticheler
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>> Conference committee,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed
>>>>>> conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from
>>>>>> Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy
>>>>>> with the text [1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether
>>>>>> you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra
>>>>>> needing to be changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably
>>>>>> all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a
>>>>>> motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes.
>>>>>> I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The changes include:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * There is no set number of people on the committee, just a
>>>>>> requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than
>>>>>> 50% of the committee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to
>>>>>> vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not
>>>>>> all) committee members to vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * A number of other minor tweaks to the text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the
>>>>>> conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for
>>>>>> 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have
>>>>>> 16 members [2] listed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from
>>>>>> the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
>>>>>> On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
>>>>>> +1, I like the compromises!
>>>>>> On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text
>>>>>> should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this
>>>>>> document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents 
>>>>>> (source in subversion)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
>>>>>>> I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to
>>>>>>> item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as
>>>>>>> the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating
>>>>>>> only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final
>>>>>>> Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by
>>>>>>> the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would
>>>>>>> then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In
>>>>>>> the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when
>>>>>>> the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap
>>>>>>> provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the
>>>>>>> earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that
>>>>>>> anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting"
>>>>>>> process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is
>>>>>>> very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover
>>>>>>> this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing
>>>>>>> cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the
>>>>>>> deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day
>>>>>>> following the deadline."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MT
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cameron Shorter
>>>>> M +61 419 142 254
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cameron Shorter
>>>> M +61 419 142 254
>>>>
>>> Helena Mitasova
>>> Professor at the Department of Marine,
>>> Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
>>> and Center for Geospatial Analytics
>>> North Carolina State University
>>> Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html
>>>
>>> "All electronic mail messages in connection with State business
>>> which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC
>>> Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.”
>>>
>

--
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
In reply to this post by Vasile Crăciunescu
On 2/1/2017 5:15 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
> +1 Vasile

+1 Venka

Thanks

>
> Thank you, Cameron!
>
> Best,
> Vasile
>
> On 1/29/17 10:00 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to
>> approved revised text for conference committee text:
>>
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>>
>>
>>
>>   Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter
>>
>>
>>     Decisions
>>
>>  1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes
>>     will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count
>>     toward decisions.
>>  2. Voting will use convention of:
>>       * +1 : For
>>       * +0: Mildly for
>>       * 0: Indifferent
>>       * -0: Mildly against
>>       * -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a
>>         reason and alternative proposal.
>>  3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a
>>     clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business
>>     days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
>>  4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum
>>     of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter
>>     participation.
>>  5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to
>>     address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where
>>     necessary.
>>  6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
>>  7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or
>>     use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.
>>
>>
>>     FOSS4G Selection
>>
>>  1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the
>>     list for open comment by all.
>>  2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of
>>     conference committee members.
>>  3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference
>>     committee’s recommendation.
>>  4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is
>>     expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is
>>     part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is
>>     employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude
>>     themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a
>>     disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the
>>     committee chair has the authority to make a decision.
>>
>>
>>     Membership
>>
>>  1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced
>>     people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs
>>     (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most
>>     recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member
>>     but still requires a motion and vote.
>>  2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from
>>     the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
>>  3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally
>>     attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G
>>     or related conferences.
>>  4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership
>>     list shall be re-visited.
>>      1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on
>>         the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of
>>         attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
>>      2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto
>>         the conference committee.
>>      3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G
>>         chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair
>>         positions shall be up for re-election.
>>      4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by
>>         the existing conference committee and board members who are not
>>         already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote
>>         Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for
>>         up to the number of positions available.
>>  5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by
>>     email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will
>>     be selected by the committee chair.
>>
>>
>>     Votes for the motion
>>
>>  1. Steven Feldman <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Stevenfeldman>
>>  2. Eli Adam <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:EliL>
>>  3. Peter Batty <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Pmbatty>
>>  4. David Bitner <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Bitner>
>>  5. Maria Brovelli <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Maria>
>>  6. Jachym Cepicky <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Jachym>
>>  7. Vasile Craciunescu <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Vasile>
>>  8. David Fawcett positive words
>>  9. Gavin Fleming <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:GFleming>
>> 10. Darrell Fuhriman
>> 11. Helena Mitasova <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Helena>
>> 12. Claude Philipona
>> 13. Venkatesh Raghavan <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Venkat>
>> 14. Paul Ramsey <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Pwramsey3>
>> 15. Cameron Shorter <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Camerons>
>> 16. Sanghee Shin <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Sanghee>
>> 17. Till Adams <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Till_Adams>
>> 18. Jeroen Ticheler
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>> Conference committee,
>>>
>>> Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference
>>> committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and
>>> Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].
>>>
>>> Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you
>>> think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing
>>> to be changed.
>>>
>>> Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably
>>> all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion
>>> as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up
>>> to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).
>>>
>>> The changes include:
>>>
>>> * There is no set number of people on the committee, just a
>>> requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50%
>>> of the committee.
>>>
>>> * Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to
>>> try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all)
>>> committee members to vote.
>>>
>>> * A number of other minor tweaks to the text.
>>>
>>> Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the
>>> conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10
>>> more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16
>>> members [2] listed.
>>>
>>> Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the
>>> committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
>>
>> On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
>>> +1, I like the compromises!
>>
>> On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go
>>> into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document
>>> myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.
>>>
>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents
>>> (source in subversion)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
>>>> I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1
>>>> of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation
>>>> did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one
>>>> proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals
>>>> _not_ be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing
>>>> cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them
>>>> publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017
>>>> competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first
>>>> proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late
>>>> submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before
>>>> submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017,
>>>> but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this
>>>> to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1
>>>> would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the
>>>> proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before
>>>> the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day
>>>> following the deadline."
>>>>
>>>> Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
>>>>
>>>> MT
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> M +61 419 142 254
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter

Conference committee,

I declare this motion passed. After a one week voting period, and following up with personal emails to people who hadn't voted, we have all votes as either positive, or people stepped down, or no response.

Steven Feldman +1
Eli Adam +1
Peter Batty +1
David Bitner +1
Maria Brovelli +1
Jachym Cepicky +1
Vasile Craciunescu +1
David Fawcett +1
Gavin Fleming +1
Darrell Fuhriman +1
Helena Mitasova 0 (retired from committee)
Claude Philipona (didn't vote, but voted +1 for motion 1)
Venkatesh Raghavan +1
Paul Ramsey +1
Cameron Shorter +1
Sanghee Shin +1
Till Adams +1
Jeroen Ticheler 0 (retired from committee)

The content from this text has been moved to:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Housekeeping_Procedures


On 30/1/17 7:00 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to approved revised text for conference committee text:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter

Decisions

  1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.
  2. Voting will use convention of:
    • +1 : For
    • +0: Mildly for
    • 0: Indifferent
    • -0: Mildly against
    • -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and alternative proposal.
  3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
  4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.
  5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.
  6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
  7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.

FOSS4G Selection

  1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all.
  2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members.
  3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s recommendation.
  4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a decision.

Membership

  1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a motion and vote.
  2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
  3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or related conferences.
  4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list shall be re-visited.
    1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
    2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the conference committee.
    3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for re-election.
    4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing conference committee and board members who are not already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.
  5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee chair.

Votes for the motion

  1. Steven Feldman
  2. Eli Adam
  3. Peter Batty
  4. David Bitner
  5. Maria Brovelli
  6. Jachym Cepicky
  7. Vasile Craciunescu
  8. David Fawcett positive words
  9. Gavin Fleming
  10. Darrell Fuhriman
  11. Helena Mitasova
  12. Claude Philipona
  13. Venkatesh Raghavan
  14. Paul Ramsey
  15. Cameron Shorter
  16. Sanghee Shin
  17. Till Adams
  18. Jeroen Ticheler



On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members

On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
+1, I like the compromises!

On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents (source in subversion)


On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Peter Batty
Well done Cameron :) !!!

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

Conference committee,

I declare this motion passed. After a one week voting period, and following up with personal emails to people who hadn't voted, we have all votes as either positive, or people stepped down, or no response.

Steven Feldman +1
Eli Adam +1
Peter Batty +1
David Bitner +1
Maria Brovelli +1
Jachym Cepicky +1
Vasile Craciunescu +1
David Fawcett +1
Gavin Fleming +1
Darrell Fuhriman +1
Helena Mitasova 0 (retired from committee)
Claude Philipona (didn't vote, but voted +1 for motion 1)
Venkatesh Raghavan +1
Paul Ramsey +1
Cameron Shorter +1
Sanghee Shin +1
Till Adams +1
Jeroen Ticheler 0 (retired from committee)

The content from this text has been moved to:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Housekeeping_Procedures


On 30/1/17 7:00 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to approved revised text for conference committee text:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter

Decisions

  1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.
  2. Voting will use convention of:
    • +1 : For
    • +0: Mildly for
    • 0: Indifferent
    • -0: Mildly against
    • -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and alternative proposal.
  3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
  4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.
  5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.
  6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
  7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.

FOSS4G Selection

  1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all.
  2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members.
  3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s recommendation.
  4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a decision.

Membership

  1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a motion and vote.
  2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
  3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or related conferences.
  4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list shall be re-visited.
    1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
    2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the conference committee.
    3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for re-election.
    4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing conference committee and board members who are not already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.
  5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee chair.

Votes for the motion

  1. Steven Feldman
  2. Eli Adam
  3. Peter Batty
  4. David Bitner
  5. Maria Brovelli
  6. Jachym Cepicky
  7. Vasile Craciunescu
  8. David Fawcett positive words
  9. Gavin Fleming
  10. Darrell Fuhriman
  11. Helena Mitasova
  12. Claude Philipona
  13. Venkatesh Raghavan
  14. Paul Ramsey
  15. Cameron Shorter
  16. Sanghee Shin
  17. Till Adams
  18. Jeroen Ticheler



On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members

On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
+1, I like the compromises!

On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents (source in subversion)


On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M <a href="tel:+61%20419%20142%20254" value="+61419142254" target="_blank">+61 419 142 254

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M <a href="tel:+61%20419%20142%20254" value="+61419142254" target="_blank">+61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

R: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Maria Antonia Brovelli
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Thank you a lot Cameron!
Best regards,
Maria



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Data: 08/02/17 20:07 (GMT+01:00)
A: conference <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Conference committee,

I declare this motion passed. After a one week voting period, and following up with personal emails to people who hadn't voted, we have all votes as either positive, or people stepped down, or no response.

Steven Feldman +1
Eli Adam +1
Peter Batty +1
David Bitner +1
Maria Brovelli +1
Jachym Cepicky +1
Vasile Craciunescu +1
David Fawcett +1
Gavin Fleming +1
Darrell Fuhriman +1
Helena Mitasova 0 (retired from committee)
Claude Philipona (didn't vote, but voted +1 for motion 1)
Venkatesh Raghavan +1
Paul Ramsey +1
Cameron Shorter +1
Sanghee Shin +1
Till Adams +1
Jeroen Ticheler 0 (retired from committee)

The content from this text has been moved to:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Housekeeping_Procedures


On 30/1/17 7:00 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to approved revised text for conference committee text:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter

Decisions

  1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.
  2. Voting will use convention of:
    • +1 : For
    • +0: Mildly for
    • 0: Indifferent
    • -0: Mildly against
    • -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and alternative proposal.
  3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
  4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.
  5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.
  6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
  7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.

FOSS4G Selection

  1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all.
  2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members.
  3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s recommendation.
  4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a decision.

Membership

  1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a motion and vote.
  2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
  3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or related conferences.
  4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list shall be re-visited.
    1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
    2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the conference committee.
    3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for re-election.
    4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing conference committee and board members who are not already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.
  5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee chair.

Votes for the motion

  1. Steven Feldman
  2. Eli Adam
  3. Peter Batty
  4. David Bitner
  5. Maria Brovelli
  6. Jachym Cepicky
  7. Vasile Craciunescu
  8. David Fawcett positive words
  9. Gavin Fleming
  10. Darrell Fuhriman
  11. Helena Mitasova
  12. Claude Philipona
  13. Venkatesh Raghavan
  14. Paul Ramsey
  15. Cameron Shorter
  16. Sanghee Shin
  17. Till Adams
  18. Jeroen Ticheler



On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members

On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
+1, I like the compromises!

On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents (source in subversion)


On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Thanks Cameron.

I'd particularly like to thank you and praise adherence to the
process, specifically, the "clearly designated separate mail thread",
"minimum of one week ... to try and ensure at least 50%", and "clearly
declared afterwards" [1].  These aspects can reduce difficulty in the
decision process.

3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a
"clearly designated separate mail thread" over a minimum of 2 business
days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a "minimum
of one week" shall be allocated to "try and ensure at least 50%" voter
participation.
6. The result will be "clearly declared afterwards."

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Decisions

I'd also like to thank everyone who participated.  Reading, thinking,
and participating is the only way that the process will work.

As we continue to other topics and decisions, please reference and
look to the process for guidance on how to proceed.

Best regards, Eli


On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Conference committee,
>
> I declare this motion passed. After a one week voting period, and following
> up with personal emails to people who hadn't voted, we have all votes as
> either positive, or people stepped down, or no response.
>
> Steven Feldman +1
> Eli Adam +1
> Peter Batty +1
> David Bitner +1
> Maria Brovelli +1
> Jachym Cepicky +1
> Vasile Craciunescu +1
> David Fawcett +1
> Gavin Fleming +1
> Darrell Fuhriman +1
> Helena Mitasova 0 (retired from committee)
> Claude Philipona (didn't vote, but voted +1 for motion 1)
> Venkatesh Raghavan +1
> Paul Ramsey +1
> Cameron Shorter +1
> Sanghee Shin +1
> Till Adams +1
> Jeroen Ticheler 0 (retired from committee)
>
> The content from this text has been moved to:
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Housekeeping_Procedures
>
>
> On 30/1/17 7:00 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
> As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to
> approved revised text for conference committee text:
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>
> Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter
>
> Decisions
>
> Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be
> noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.
> Voting will use convention of:
>
> +1 : For
> +0: Mildly for
> 0: Indifferent
> -0: Mildly against
> -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and
> alternative proposal.
>
> Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly
> designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a
> minimum participation of 3 votes.
> For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one
> week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.
> The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address
> all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.
> The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
> Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an
> email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.
>
> FOSS4G Selection
>
> All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list
> for open comment by all.
> The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference
> committee members.
> The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s
> recommendation.
> Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to
> withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding
> team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing
> an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the
> selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential
> conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a
> decision.
>
> Membership
>
> To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people,
> the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice
> chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G
> event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a
> motion and vote.
> The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5
> most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
> The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally
> attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or
> related conferences.
> Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list
> shall be re-visited.
>
> Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the
> committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to
> contact them, they shall be retired.
> Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the
> conference committee.
> If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice
> chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for
> re-election.
> Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing
> conference committee and board members who are not already members of the
> conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate.
> Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.
>
> Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a
> designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the
> committee chair.
>
> Votes for the motion
>
> Steven Feldman
> Eli Adam
> Peter Batty
> David Bitner
> Maria Brovelli
> Jachym Cepicky
> Vasile Craciunescu
> David Fawcett positive words
> Gavin Fleming
> Darrell Fuhriman
> Helena Mitasova
> Claude Philipona
> Venkatesh Raghavan
> Paul Ramsey
> Cameron Shorter
> Sanghee Shin
> Till Adams
> Jeroen Ticheler
>
>
>
>
> On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
> Conference committee,
>
> Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference
> committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka.
> After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].
>
> Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it
> is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.
>
> Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and
> any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate
> email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10
> Jan for people to comment).
>
> The changes include:
>
> * There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that
> global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.
>
> * Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try
> and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members
> to vote.
>
> * A number of other minor tweaks to the text.
>
> Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference
> committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the
> committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.
>
> Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the
> committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>
> [2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
>
>
> On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
>
> +1, I like the compromises!
>
>
> On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into
> the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but
> happy to see someone else take it on.
>
> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents
> (source in subversion)
>
>
> On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
>
> I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of
> "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not
> arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would
> respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the
> Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary,
> who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In
> the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first
> proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late
> submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before
> submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the
> "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and
> is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this:
> "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an
> intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the
> intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."
>
> Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
>
> MT
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev