R: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
39 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

R: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Maria Antonia Brovelli
I again propose to vote on 1) 
We have been discussing for many days and sooner or later we have to take a decision, which will not be the same for all of us.

Please, shall we vote on 

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board . Voting
procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

                                 ?

Best.
Maria 

Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: [hidden email]
Data: 27/09/2016 08:59 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Hi Eli, @all,

indeed this is a different question and before I read your example of 4
people having read the full proposals instead of 8, that just skimmed
through it, I'd have said, that we for sure need a 50% quorum.

But, thinking about this for as while, I still think that 50% quorum is
needed: I do not want to say, that the CC is the "most important"
committee, but it cares for our most important flagship:
Our global conference. So if I want to be member of that committee,
everybody in and around OSGeo can expect, that I will do my job.
My opinion: If I will not do my job, you can remove me from the
committee, because I am useless and I just occupy a position, other
motivated people want to have but presumably can't.

I think the idea of Steven, to reduce the voting numbers to 11 helps us
to catch up with that problem. If we have 11 interested, motivated and
engaged people, with 1-2 coming in and 1-2 leaving every year, we should
be able to have at least more than 4 people reading the proposals and
more than 5 people, who vote.

Regards, Till


Am 2016-09-27 00:03, schrieb Eli Adam:
> Hi Maria and all,
>
> Maybe it was missed in the length of the other thread.  I had some
> specific question and cited specific examples.  What are your
> thoughts
> on these items?
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Here the amended motion.
>>
>> In my opinion it is the very time of voting  to be able to go ahead.
>>
>> It is better to vote before for  1) in such a way that we have a
>> procedure
>> and then vote for 2-5.
>>
>> Steven, I leave you to decide the time.
>>
>> Best.
>> Maria
>>
>>
>> 1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board
>> Voting
>> procedure  made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is
>> adopted.
>>
>
> I'd like to propose quorum of greater than or equal to 25%.  Is that
> agreeable to you?
>
> I think that we need to be based on reality, not ideals.  Here are
> some OSGeo projects with votes less than 50% including the conference
> committee making the most important decision it makes every year.  To
> me these represent continued success, not failure.
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-132
> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-89.html
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/44
> https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc63_sparse_datasets_improvements
>
> These projects have many more votes with greater than 50%
> participation; maybe those were more interesting topics or better
> timed with personal events in people's lives.
>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> 2) The number of members of the Conference Committee is equal to 17.
>
> Previously Paul made a call for everyone who didn't vote to resign,
>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2012-April/001723.html
> and I think that was generally poorly received.  Subsequently I think
> Cameron did something like that with the intent of spurring people
> into action (which worked).
>
> 50% is fine with me except to keep the committee functional, we need
> to routinely raise motions to remove committee members who haven't
> voted.  I think a better method is a lower quorum.  Both work but one
> seems unfriendly.
>
> What do other committee members think?  What is a reasonable and
> obtainable quorum percentage?  Is removing members for lack of
> participation a good idea?
>
> I'd rather the votes of 4 people who read three entire 50+ page
> proposals than the votes of 8 people who skimmed the proposals or of
> those same 4 people after removing the non-voting other 4 yielding
> 100% voting.
>
> I'm glad that we're clarifying our operating procedures on the
> committee.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
>>
>> 3) The retirement policy adopted by the Conference Committee is the
>> same as
>> that of the Board.
>>
>> Conference Committee  membership is for a 2 year term with half of
>> the
>> Conference Committee seats coming up for election each year.
>>
>> 4) The present Committee continues for an year and we hold election
>> in 2017
>> with the 9 seats  (9 of the longest serving members vacating their
>> seats in
>> Conference Committee) coming up for election.
>>
>> 5) Voting for Conference Committee members is restricted to the
>> remaining
>> Conference Committee members and Board members who are not members
>> of the
>> Conference Committee
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
>> Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
>> Politecnico di Milano
>>
>> ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)";
>> OSGeo;
>> ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge;
>> SIFET
>>
>> Sol Katz Award 2015
>>
>>
>>
>> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
>>
>> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
>>
>> e-mail1: [hidden email]
>>
>> e-mail2: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

stevenfeldman
Maria

If you insist, we will vote on item 1) of Maria’s motion

Maria, how long would you like voting to last?
______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 08:33, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

I again propose to vote on 1) 
We have been discussing for many days and sooner or later we have to take a decision, which will not be the same for all of us.

Please, shall we vote on 

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board . Voting
procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

                                 ?

Best.
Maria 

Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: [hidden email]
Data: 27/09/2016 08:59 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Hi Eli, @all,

indeed this is a different question and before I read your example of 4
people having read the full proposals instead of 8, that just skimmed
through it, I'd have said, that we for sure need a 50% quorum.

But, thinking about this for as while, I still think that 50% quorum is
needed: I do not want to say, that the CC is the "most important"
committee, but it cares for our most important flagship:
Our global conference. So if I want to be member of that committee,
everybody in and around OSGeo can expect, that I will do my job.
My opinion: If I will not do my job, you can remove me from the
committee, because I am useless and I just occupy a position, other
motivated people want to have but presumably can't.

I think the idea of Steven, to reduce the voting numbers to 11 helps us
to catch up with that problem. If we have 11 interested, motivated and
engaged people, with 1-2 coming in and 1-2 leaving every year, we should
be able to have at least more than 4 people reading the proposals and
more than 5 people, who vote.

Regards, Till


Am 2016-09-27 00:03, schrieb Eli Adam:
> Hi Maria and all,
>
> Maybe it was missed in the length of the other thread.  I had some
> specific question and cited specific examples.  What are your
> thoughts
> on these items?
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Here the amended motion.
>>
>> In my opinion it is the very time of voting  to be able to go ahead.
>>
>> It is better to vote before for  1) in such a way that we have a
>> procedure
>> and then vote for 2-5.
>>
>> Steven, I leave you to decide the time.
>>
>> Best.
>> Maria
>>
>>
>> 1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board
>> Voting
>> procedure  made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is
>> adopted.
>>
>
> I'd like to propose quorum of greater than or equal to 25%.  Is that
> agreeable to you?
>
> I think that we need to be based on reality, not ideals.  Here are
> some OSGeo projects with votes less than 50% including the conference
> committee making the most important decision it makes every year.  To
> me these represent continued success, not failure.
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-132
> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-89.html
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/44
> https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc63_sparse_datasets_improvements
>
> These projects have many more votes with greater than 50%
> participation; maybe those were more interesting topics or better
> timed with personal events in people's lives.
>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> 2) The number of members of the Conference Committee is equal to 17.
>
> Previously Paul made a call for everyone who didn't vote to resign,
>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2012-April/001723.html
> and I think that was generally poorly received.  Subsequently I think
> Cameron did something like that with the intent of spurring people
> into action (which worked).
>
> 50% is fine with me except to keep the committee functional, we need
> to routinely raise motions to remove committee members who haven't
> voted.  I think a better method is a lower quorum.  Both work but one
> seems unfriendly.
>
> What do other committee members think?  What is a reasonable and
> obtainable quorum percentage?  Is removing members for lack of
> participation a good idea?
>
> I'd rather the votes of 4 people who read three entire 50+ page
> proposals than the votes of 8 people who skimmed the proposals or of
> those same 4 people after removing the non-voting other 4 yielding
> 100% voting.
>
> I'm glad that we're clarifying our operating procedures on the
> committee.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
>>
>> 3) The retirement policy adopted by the Conference Committee is the
>> same as
>> that of the Board.
>>
>> Conference Committee  membership is for a 2 year term with half of
>> the
>> Conference Committee seats coming up for election each year.
>>
>> 4) The present Committee continues for an year and we hold election
>> in 2017
>> with the 9 seats  (9 of the longest serving members vacating their
>> seats in
>> Conference Committee) coming up for election.
>>
>> 5) Voting for Conference Committee members is restricted to the
>> remaining
>> Conference Committee members and Board members who are not members
>> of the
>> Conference Committee
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
>> Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
>> Politecnico di Milano
>>
>> ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)";
>> OSGeo;
>> ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge;
>> SIFET
>>
>> Sol Katz Award 2015
>>
>>
>>
>> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
>>
>> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
>>
>> e-mail1: [hidden email]
>>
>> e-mail2: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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


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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Maria Antonia Brovelli

Sorry, I don't know why my emails don't arrive when I send them but they take at least one hour (in some cases I noticed some hours).

My email was sent before you wrote you voting proposal. I don't want to appear more rude than I am ;-)


However, probably an asynchronous vote, where earlier we decide how we want to vote and then we vote for the other items could be more logic.


Sorry again and I hope that this mail goes faster 

Thanks Steven for your patience...

Maria




----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET 

Sol Katz Award 2015

 

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)

Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321

e-mail1: [hidden email][hidden email]

e-mail2: [hidden email]




 




Da: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> per conto di Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Inviato: martedì 27 settembre 2016 10.17
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
 
Maria

If you insist, we will vote on item 1) of Maria’s motion

Maria, how long would you like voting to last?
______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 08:33, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

I again propose to vote on 1) 
We have been discussing for many days and sooner or later we have to take a decision, which will not be the same for all of us.

Please, shall we vote on 

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board . Voting
procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

                                 ?

Best.
Maria 

Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: [hidden email]
Data: 27/09/2016 08:59 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Hi Eli, @all,

indeed this is a different question and before I read your example of 4
people having read the full proposals instead of 8, that just skimmed
through it, I'd have said, that we for sure need a 50% quorum.

But, thinking about this for as while, I still think that 50% quorum is
needed: I do not want to say, that the CC is the "most important"
committee, but it cares for our most important flagship:
Our global conference. So if I want to be member of that committee,
everybody in and around OSGeo can expect, that I will do my job.
My opinion: If I will not do my job, you can remove me from the
committee, because I am useless and I just occupy a position, other
motivated people want to have but presumably can't.

I think the idea of Steven, to reduce the voting numbers to 11 helps us
to catch up with that problem. If we have 11 interested, motivated and
engaged people, with 1-2 coming in and 1-2 leaving every year, we should
be able to have at least more than 4 people reading the proposals and
more than 5 people, who vote.

Regards, Till


Am 2016-09-27 00:03, schrieb Eli Adam:
> Hi Maria and all,
>
> Maybe it was missed in the length of the other thread.  I had some
> specific question and cited specific examples.  What are your
> thoughts
> on these items?
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Here the amended motion.
>>
>> In my opinion it is the very time of voting  to be able to go ahead.
>>
>> It is better to vote before for  1) in such a way that we have a
>> procedure
>> and then vote for 2-5.
>>
>> Steven, I leave you to decide the time.
>>
>> Best.
>> Maria
>>
>>
>> 1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board
>> Voting
>> procedure  made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is
>> adopted.
>>
>
> I'd like to propose quorum of greater than or equal to 25%.  Is that
> agreeable to you?
>
> I think that we need to be based on reality, not ideals.  Here are
> some OSGeo projects with votes less than 50% including the conference
> committee making the most important decision it makes every year.  To
> me these represent continued success, not failure.
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-132
> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-89.html
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/44
> https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc63_sparse_datasets_improvements
>
> These projects have many more votes with greater than 50%
> participation; maybe those were more interesting topics or better
> timed with personal events in people's lives.
>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> 2) The number of members of the Conference Committee is equal to 17.
>
> Previously Paul made a call for everyone who didn't vote to resign,
>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2012-April/001723.html
> and I think that was generally poorly received.  Subsequently I think
> Cameron did something like that with the intent of spurring people
> into action (which worked).
>
> 50% is fine with me except to keep the committee functional, we need
> to routinely raise motions to remove committee members who haven't
> voted.  I think a better method is a lower quorum.  Both work but one
> seems unfriendly.
>
> What do other committee members think?  What is a reasonable and
> obtainable quorum percentage?  Is removing members for lack of
> participation a good idea?
>
> I'd rather the votes of 4 people who read three entire 50+ page
> proposals than the votes of 8 people who skimmed the proposals or of
> those same 4 people after removing the non-voting other 4 yielding
> 100% voting.
>
> I'm glad that we're clarifying our operating procedures on the
> committee.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
>>
>> 3) The retirement policy adopted by the Conference Committee is the
>> same as
>> that of the Board.
>>
>> Conference Committee  membership is for a 2 year term with half of
>> the
>> Conference Committee seats coming up for election each year.
>>
>> 4) The present Committee continues for an year and we hold election
>> in 2017
>> with the 9 seats  (9 of the longest serving members vacating their
>> seats in
>> Conference Committee) coming up for election.
>>
>> 5) Voting for Conference Committee members is restricted to the
>> remaining
>> Conference Committee members and Board members who are not members
>> of the
>> Conference Committee
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
>> Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
>> Politecnico di Milano
>>
>> ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)";
>> OSGeo;
>> ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge;
>> SIFET
>>
>> Sol Katz Award 2015
>>
>>
>>
>> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
>>
>> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
>>
>> e-mail1: [hidden email]
>>
>> e-mail2: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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


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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

stevenfeldman
We are voting on Maria’s 1st amendment to the original motion (note that 4 further amendments may be proposed subsequently)

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee, the Board Voting procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

For your info the Board Voting procedure is here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure and the Committee Guidelines are here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines the two are not the same.

The voting will close at 18.00 GMT on Thursday 29th September (2 clear business days as per Committee Guidelines).

Please vote in this thread, if you vote -1 please explain your concern and suggest an alternative
______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 09:24, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sorry, I don't know why my emails don't arrive when I send them but they take at least one hour (in some cases I noticed some hours).
My email was sent before you wrote you voting proposal. I don't want to appear more rude than I am ;-)

However, probably an asynchronous vote, where earlier we decide how we want to vote and then we vote for the other items could be more logic.

Sorry again and I hope that this mail goes faster 
Thanks Steven for your patience...
Maria



----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET 
Sol Katz Award 2015

 

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321



 




Da: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> per conto di Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Inviato: martedì 27 settembre 2016 10.17
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
 
Maria

If you insist, we will vote on item 1) of Maria’s motion

Maria, how long would you like voting to last?
______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 08:33, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

I again propose to vote on 1) 
We have been discussing for many days and sooner or later we have to take a decision, which will not be the same for all of us.

Please, shall we vote on 

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board . Voting
procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

                                 ?

Best.
Maria 



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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Maria Antonia Brovelli

+1


Maria




----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET 

Sol Katz Award 2015

 

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)

Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321

e-mail1: [hidden email][hidden email]

e-mail2: [hidden email]




 




Da: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Inviato: martedì 27 settembre 2016 10.49
A: Maria Antonia Brovelli; [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
 
We are voting on Maria’s 1st amendment to the original motion (note that 4 further amendments may be proposed subsequently)

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee, the Board Voting procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

For your info the Board Voting procedure is here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure and the Committee Guidelines are here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines the two are not the same.

The voting will close at 18.00 GMT on Thursday 29th September (2 clear business days as per Committee Guidelines).

Please vote in this thread, if you vote -1 please explain your concern and suggest an alternative
______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 09:24, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sorry, I don't know why my emails don't arrive when I send them but they take at least one hour (in some cases I noticed some hours).
My email was sent before you wrote you voting proposal. I don't want to appear more rude than I am ;-)

However, probably an asynchronous vote, where earlier we decide how we want to vote and then we vote for the other items could be more logic.

Sorry again and I hope that this mail goes faster 
Thanks Steven for your patience...
Maria



----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET 
Sol Katz Award 2015

 

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321



 




Da: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> per conto di Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Inviato: martedì 27 settembre 2016 10.17
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
 
Maria

If you insist, we will vote on item 1) of Maria’s motion

Maria, how long would you like voting to last?
______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 08:33, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

I again propose to vote on 1) 
We have been discussing for many days and sooner or later we have to take a decision, which will not be the same for all of us.

Please, shall we vote on 

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board . Voting
procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

                                 ?

Best.
Maria 



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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman

+0 for 50% Quorum for conference committee votes. Cameron.

I'd prefer there to be no required quorum, and to trust the judgment of the conference chair to ensure sufficient votes. However 50% is better than 100%, and I consider a reasonable compromise.

If introducing a quorum, then there will need to be a way to remove people who don't vote, and hence maintain an active committee.

On 27/09/2016 6:49 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
We are voting on Maria’s 1st amendment to the original motion (note that 4 further amendments may be proposed subsequently)

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee, the Board Voting procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

For your info the Board Voting procedure is here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure and the Committee Guidelines are here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines the two are not the same.

The voting will close at 18.00 GMT on Thursday 29th September (2 clear business days as per Committee Guidelines).

Please vote in this thread, if you vote -1 please explain your concern and suggest an alternative
______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 09:24, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sorry, I don't know why my emails don't arrive when I send them but they take at least one hour (in some cases I noticed some hours).
My email was sent before you wrote you voting proposal. I don't want to appear more rude than I am ;-)

However, probably an asynchronous vote, where earlier we decide how we want to vote and then we vote for the other items could be more logic.

Sorry again and I hope that this mail goes faster 
Thanks Steven for your patience...
Maria



----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET 
Sol Katz Award 2015

 

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
e-mail1: [hidden email]



 




Da: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> per conto di Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Inviato: martedì 27 settembre 2016 10.17
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
 
Maria

If you insist, we will vote on item 1) of Maria’s motion

Maria, how long would you like voting to last?
______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 08:33, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

I again propose to vote on 1) 
We have been discussing for many days and sooner or later we have to take a decision, which will not be the same for all of us.

Please, shall we vote on 

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board . Voting
procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

                                 ?

Best.
Maria 




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

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
In reply to this post by Maria Antonia Brovelli
On 9/27/2016 5:50 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:
> +1

+1, Venka

>
>
> Maria
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
> Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
> Politecnico di Milano
>
> ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET
> Sol Katz Award 2015
>
> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
> e-mail1: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email]
> e-mail2: [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Da: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
> Inviato: martedì 27 settembre 2016 10.49
> A: Maria Antonia Brovelli; [hidden email]
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
>
> We are voting on Maria's 1st amendment to the original motion (note that 4 further amendments may be proposed subsequently)
>
> 1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee, the Board Voting procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.
>
> For your info the Board Voting procedure is here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure and the Committee Guidelines are here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines the two are not the same.
>
> The voting will close at 18.00 GMT on Thursday 29th September (2 clear business days as per Committee Guidelines).
>
> Please vote in this thread, if you vote -1 please explain your concern and suggest an alternative
> ______
> Steven
>
>
> On 27 Sep 2016, at 09:24, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I don't know why my emails don't arrive when I send them but they take at least one hour (in some cases I noticed some hours).
> My email was sent before you wrote you voting proposal. I don't want to appear more rude than I am ;-)
>
> However, probably an asynchronous vote, where earlier we decide how we want to vote and then we vote for the other items could be more logic.
>
> Sorry again and I hope that this mail goes faster
> Thanks Steven for your patience...
> Maria
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
> Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
> Politecnico di Milano
>
> ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET
> Sol Katz Award 2015
>
> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
> e-mail1: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> e-mail2: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Da: Conference_dev <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> per conto di Steven Feldman <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Inviato: martedì 27 settembre 2016 10.17
> A: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
>
> Maria
>
> If you insist, we will vote on item 1) of Maria's motion
>
> Maria, how long would you like voting to last?
> ______
> Steven
>
>
> On 27 Sep 2016, at 08:33, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> I again propose to vote on 1)
> We have been discussing for many days and sooner or later we have to take a decision, which will not be the same for all of us.
>
> Please, shall we vote on
>
> 1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board . Voting
> procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.
>
>                                  ?
>
> Best.
> Maria
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>

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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

stevenfeldman
I am voting -1 

I would prefer that we adopted the Conference Committee Guidelines which allow more flexibility. I am not convinced that there is a case for differentiating the conference committee from all the other committees.

I wish to be clear that I do not want my -1 to constitute a veto, it is an expression of strong disagreement. The current voting scheme does not have a vote that expresses strong disagreement, the Board voting procedures say "A vote of "-0" indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect”. I want my vote to have effect and to be registered as a vote against the motion. 

If there is a majority in favour of the motion I will accept the majority view which I believe is the way that this committee and all OSGeo committees should operate.

______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 12:07, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 9/27/2016 5:50 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:
+1

+1, Venka


Maria




----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET
Sol Katz Award 2015

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
e-mail1: <[hidden email]> [hidden email]
e-mail2: [hidden email]






________________________________
Da: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Inviato: martedì 27 settembre 2016 10.49
A: Maria Antonia Brovelli; [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

We are voting on Maria's 1st amendment to the original motion (note that 4 further amendments may be proposed subsequently)

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee, the Board Voting procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

For your info the Board Voting procedure is here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure and the Committee Guidelines are here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines the two are not the same.

The voting will close at 18.00 GMT on Thursday 29th September (2 clear business days as per Committee Guidelines).

Please vote in this thread, if you vote -1 please explain your concern and suggest an alternative
______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 09:24, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]<[hidden email]>> wrote:

Sorry, I don't know why my emails don't arrive when I send them but they take at least one hour (in some cases I noticed some hours).
My email was sent before you wrote you voting proposal. I don't want to appear more rude than I am ;-)

However, probably an asynchronous vote, where earlier we decide how we want to vote and then we vote for the other items could be more logic.

Sorry again and I hope that this mail goes faster
Thanks Steven for your patience...
Maria



----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET
Sol Katz Award 2015

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
e-mail1: <[hidden email]> [hidden email]<[hidden email]>
e-mail2: [hidden email]<[hidden email]>






________________________________
Da: Conference_dev <[hidden email]<[hidden email]>> per conto di Steven Feldman <[hidden email]<[hidden email]>>
Inviato: martedì 27 settembre 2016 10.17
A: [hidden email]<[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Maria

If you insist, we will vote on item 1) of Maria's motion

Maria, how long would you like voting to last?
______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 08:33, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]<[hidden email]>> wrote:

I again propose to vote on 1)
We have been discussing for many days and sooner or later we have to take a decision, which will not be the same for all of us.

Please, shall we vote on

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board . Voting
procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

                                ?

Best.
Maria





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


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


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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

David William Bitner-3
I am +1 on Maria's point 1 to have a 50% quorum. Personally, I'd be happy going down to 25% especially if we keep a larger committee than just 11, but 50% is reasonable and better than 100% or having the quorum be undefined.

While the vote on hosting the annual conference is one of the biggest decisions that OSGeo makes every year, it is important to note that this committee's vote is simply a recommendation to the Board. We can all hope that the Board takes this recommendation very seriously, but I would rather only have people who actually are paying attention and reading all the bids really participate. What we deliver to the Board is not simply a vote, but we also provide a conversation, recorded on this list, that expresses any thoughts and concerns we all have based on our experiences running FOSS4G's and other events.

David

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am voting -1 

I would prefer that we adopted the Conference Committee Guidelines which allow more flexibility. I am not convinced that there is a case for differentiating the conference committee from all the other committees.

I wish to be clear that I do not want my -1 to constitute a veto, it is an expression of strong disagreement. The current voting scheme does not have a vote that expresses strong disagreement, the Board voting procedures say "A vote of "-0" indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect”. I want my vote to have effect and to be registered as a vote against the motion. 

If there is a majority in favour of the motion I will accept the majority view which I believe is the way that this committee and all OSGeo committees should operate.

______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 12:07, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 9/27/2016 5:50 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:
+1

+1, Venka


Maria




----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET
Sol Katz Award 2015

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
Tel. <a href="tel:%2B39-031-3327336" value="+390313327336" target="_blank">+39-031-3327336 - Mob. <a href="tel:%2B39-328-0023867" value="+393280023867" target="_blank">+39-328-0023867 - fax. <a href="tel:%2B39-031-3327321" value="+390313327321" target="_blank">+39-031-3327321
e-mail1: <[hidden email]> [hidden email]
e-mail2: [hidden email]






________________________________
Da: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Inviato: martedì 27 settembre 2016 10.49
A: Maria Antonia Brovelli; [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

We are voting on Maria's 1st amendment to the original motion (note that 4 further amendments may be proposed subsequently)

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee, the Board Voting procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

For your info the Board Voting procedure is here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure and the Committee Guidelines are here https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines the two are not the same.

The voting will close at 18.00 GMT on Thursday 29th September (2 clear business days as per Committee Guidelines).

Please vote in this thread, if you vote -1 please explain your concern and suggest an alternative
______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 09:24, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]<[hidden email]>> wrote:

Sorry, I don't know why my emails don't arrive when I send them but they take at least one hour (in some cases I noticed some hours).
My email was sent before you wrote you voting proposal. I don't want to appear more rude than I am ;-)

However, probably an asynchronous vote, where earlier we decide how we want to vote and then we vote for the other items could be more logic.

Sorry again and I hope that this mail goes faster
Thanks Steven for your patience...
Maria



----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET
Sol Katz Award 2015

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
Tel. <a href="tel:%2B39-031-3327336" value="+390313327336" target="_blank">+39-031-3327336 - Mob. <a href="tel:%2B39-328-0023867" value="+393280023867" target="_blank">+39-328-0023867 - fax. <a href="tel:%2B39-031-3327321" value="+390313327321" target="_blank">+39-031-3327321
e-mail1: <[hidden email]> [hidden email]<[hidden email]>
e-mail2: [hidden email]<[hidden email]>






________________________________
Da: Conference_dev <[hidden email]<[hidden email]>> per conto di Steven Feldman <[hidden email]<[hidden email]>>
Inviato: martedì 27 settembre 2016 10.17
A: [hidden email]<[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Maria

If you insist, we will vote on item 1) of Maria's motion

Maria, how long would you like voting to last?
______
Steven


On 27 Sep 2016, at 08:33, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]<[hidden email]>> wrote:

I again propose to vote on 1)
We have been discussing for many days and sooner or later we have to take a decision, which will not be the same for all of us.

Please, shall we vote on

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board . Voting
procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

                                ?

Best.
Maria





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


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


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



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

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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Darrell Fuhriman
+1 for me, and my sentiments are similar to David’s.

Darrell



On Sep 27, 2016, at 08:10, David William Bitner <[hidden email]> wrote:

I am +1 on Maria's point 1 to have a 50% quorum. Personally, I'd be happy going down to 25% especially if we keep a larger committee than just 11, but 50% is reasonable and better than 100% or having the quorum be undefined.

While the vote on hosting the annual conference is one of the biggest decisions that OSGeo makes every year, it is important to note that this committee's vote is simply a recommendation to the Board. We can all hope that the Board takes this recommendation very seriously, but I would rather only have people who actually are paying attention and reading all the bids really participate. What we deliver to the Board is not simply a vote, but we also provide a conversation, recorded on this list, that expresses any thoughts and concerns we all have based on our experiences running FOSS4G's and other events.



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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Sanghee Shin

+1 for Maria's proposal to have a 50% quorum.

Sanghee


2016. 9. 27. 오후 6:14에 "Darrell Fuhriman" <[hidden email]>님이 작성:
+1 for me, and my sentiments are similar to David’s.

Darrell



On Sep 27, 2016, at 08:10, David William Bitner <[hidden email]> wrote:

I am +1 on Maria's point 1 to have a 50% quorum. Personally, I'd be happy going down to 25% especially if we keep a larger committee than just 11, but 50% is reasonable and better than 100% or having the quorum be undefined.

While the vote on hosting the annual conference is one of the biggest decisions that OSGeo makes every year, it is important to note that this committee's vote is simply a recommendation to the Board. We can all hope that the Board takes this recommendation very seriously, but I would rather only have people who actually are paying attention and reading all the bids really participate. What we deliver to the Board is not simply a vote, but we also provide a conversation, recorded on this list, that expresses any thoughts and concerns we all have based on our experiences running FOSS4G's and other events.



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

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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

stevenfeldman
I have moved the summary of these discussions and voting from the main Conference Committee page on the wiki to a separate page at https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions Feel free to correct any omissions or misunderstandings

When the committee has voted on all of the amendments and has adopted policies on membership and voting, those policies should be added to the main CC page on the wiki

Cheers
______
Steven


On 28 Sep 2016, at 06:10, 신상희 <[hidden email]> wrote:

+1 for Maria's proposal to have a 50% quorum.

Sanghee


2016. 9. 27. 오후 6:14에 "Darrell Fuhriman" <[hidden email]>님이 작성:
+1 for me, and my sentiments are similar to David’s.

Darrell



On Sep 27, 2016, at 08:10, David William Bitner <[hidden email]> wrote:

I am +1 on Maria's point 1 to have a 50% quorum. Personally, I'd be happy going down to 25% especially if we keep a larger committee than just 11, but 50% is reasonable and better than 100% or having the quorum be undefined.

While the vote on hosting the annual conference is one of the biggest decisions that OSGeo makes every year, it is important to note that this committee's vote is simply a recommendation to the Board. We can all hope that the Board takes this recommendation very seriously, but I would rather only have people who actually are paying attention and reading all the bids really participate. What we deliver to the Board is not simply a vote, but we also provide a conversation, recorded on this list, that expresses any thoughts and concerns we all have based on our experiences running FOSS4G's and other events.



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


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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

stevenfeldman
The voting for the amendment has closed.

The votes are:
+1 = 5 (Maria, Venka, David D, Darrel & Sanghee)
+0 = 1 (Cameron)
-1 = 1 (Steven but not a veto)
No vote received = 9 others

There is an irony to this result. If we apply the amended voting rules that were being voted upon the motion would have failed to reach a quorum. Had we used the Committee Guidelines that the amendment seeks to replace this amendment would have been passed.

Perhaps those proposing the amendment would like to suggest how we should proceed? I fear that we are in danger of succumbing to voter fatigue if we extend this vote and nag those who have less interest to vote (perhaps some committee members are mainly interested in helping with the annual selection of a FOSS4G than they are in the minutiae of committee policies and procedures).

In an endeavour to reach consensus and move on from this topic I suggest that we adopt the amendment (with an additional clause that allows the committee chair to use his discretion where the quorum has not been reached but there is a strong majority of those voting in favour and no veto) to avoid us getting stuck in this situation in the future.

I have redrafted the original motion to include the amendment that Maria proposed (I have included the full wording from the Board Voting section of the wiki amended as necessary). Could Maria and Venka confirm that they are in agreement with this course of action and with the amended text below.

Maria (and I believe Venka) had suggested 4 additional amendments to the original motion. Can you advise whether you wish to progress those amendments or whether you are content with the motion as currently amended?

I apologise to everyone on the list for the extent to which this topic has clogged your mail boxes, I had not expected the proposal to prompt so much comment. 

Cheers

______
Steven

AMENDED MOTION
================


Goals
=====

The conference committee have the responsibility to run the selection process and voting for the global FOSS4G, to vote on other proposals submitted to the committee and to advise the board on other matters relating to FOSS4G events.

Role of the Committee and the broader community on the Conference_Dev list
============================================================

1) Voting Procedure
  1. Motions will be decided upon by an open vote of all Committee members in a clearly designated separate mail thread (+1/-1) over a minimum of two business days
  2. each Committee member may vote “+1” to indicate support for a motion.
  3. each Committee member may vote “-1” to veto a motion, but must provide clear reasoning and alternate approaches to resolving the problem within the two business days.
  4. A vote of "-0" indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect. A "0" indicates no opinion, but has no effect. A "+0" indicate mild support, but has no effect.
  5. A motion will be passed once the voting period has ended if a quorum of at least 50% of the committee members place a vote, and no vetoes are received (-1).
  6. In the event that a quorum (50% of members) has not been reached, the chair may use its discretion to either extend the voting period or declare the motion passed if other than the quorum it has met the requirements of 5 above
  7. If a motion is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote, which will be decided by a majority of voting members indicating +1 (i.e no veto) to pass it (subject to a minimum of 50% voting).

2) Election of the conference committee is by secret vote and restricted to the remaining conference committee members and board members who are not members of the conference committee.

3) FOSS4G Selection - All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all participants. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members only. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from vote. In the event of a disagreement the committee chair will decide.

Votes in 2 and 3 are to an online voting service or by email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair

Conference Committee membership policy and process
==========================================

1) The conference committee aims to retain up to 11 active members, preferably an odd number

2) The committee aims for half of these members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of the most recent FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member

3) The remaining membership is open, ideally attracting people from earlier past chairs or active LOC members from past Global, Regional FOSS4G or related conferences

4) Each year (after FOSS4G) the 3 committee members should stand down:
a) The longest standing past FOSS4G chair
b) The longest standing 2 committee members remaining

5) Each year, prior to putting out the Global FOSS4G RfP, the old committee should vote for their replacement committee, using the above criteria as voting guidelines.  OSGeo Board members who are not on the conference committee will also be invited to vote.

6) Past committee members including those who have stood down due to length of service may stand for re-election

7) 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.




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

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman
I thought that I had 15 more minutes to comment,
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

This amendment has only gotten participation of 7/16 committee members
which demonstrates exactly why to not pass it.

No one (Maria included) has responded to my real world OSGeo project
examples (including the conference committee selecting the FOSS4G bid)
of less than 50% participation.
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-September/003998.html.
Also, no one has commented on the apparent unpopularity of calling to
remove committee members but the mathematical need for that to keep
the committee functional with a 50% quorum requirement.

3 of the 7 who participated, expressed favor for a 25% or lower quorum.

Maria, to keep the committee functional, will you bring a proposal to
remove the 9/16 committee members who didn't vote?

If I were to vote on this, I would vote -1.  Right now it is obvious
to me that the committee will become defunct with a 50% quorum
requirement.  I have provided numerous counterexamples from our OSGeo
Projects and this committee itself.  No one has addressed those
examples or proposed solutions to how to keep the committee
functional.

Best regards, Eli

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have moved the summary of these discussions and voting from the main
> Conference Committee page on the wiki to a separate page at
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions Feel
> free to correct any omissions or misunderstandings
>
> When the committee has voted on all of the amendments and has adopted
> policies on membership and voting, those policies should be added to the
> main CC page on the wiki
>
> Cheers
> ______
> Steven
>
>
> On 28 Sep 2016, at 06:10, 신상희 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> +1 for Maria's proposal to have a 50% quorum.
>
> Sanghee
>
>
> 2016. 9. 27. 오후 6:14에 "Darrell Fuhriman" <[hidden email]>님이 작성:
>>
>> +1 for me, and my sentiments are similar to David’s.
>>
>> Darrell
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2016, at 08:10, David William Bitner <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I am +1 on Maria's point 1 to have a 50% quorum. Personally, I'd be happy
>> going down to 25% especially if we keep a larger committee than just 11, but
>> 50% is reasonable and better than 100% or having the quorum be undefined.
>>
>> While the vote on hosting the annual conference is one of the biggest
>> decisions that OSGeo makes every year, it is important to note that this
>> committee's vote is simply a recommendation to the Board. We can all hope
>> that the Board takes this recommendation very seriously, but I would rather
>> only have people who actually are paying attention and reading all the bids
>> really participate. What we deliver to the Board is not simply a vote, but
>> we also provide a conversation, recorded on this list, that expresses any
>> thoughts and concerns we all have based on our experiences running FOSS4G's
>> and other events.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Even Rouault-2
Le jeudi 29 septembre 2016 19:45:29, Eli Adam a écrit :

> I thought that I had 15 more minutes to comment,
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
>
> This amendment has only gotten participation of 7/16 committee members
> which demonstrates exactly why to not pass it.
>
> No one (Maria included) has responded to my real world OSGeo project
> examples (including the conference committee selecting the FOSS4G bid)
> of less than 50% participation.
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-September/003998.html
> . Also, no one has commented on the apparent unpopularity of calling to
> remove committee members but the mathematical need for that to keep the
> committee functional with a 50% quorum requirement.
>
> 3 of the 7 who participated, expressed favor for a 25% or lower quorum.
>
> Maria, to keep the committee functional, will you bring a proposal to
> remove the 9/16 committee members who didn't vote?
>
> If I were to vote on this, I would vote -1.  Right now it is obvious
> to me that the committee will become defunct with a 50% quorum
> requirement.  I have provided numerous counterexamples from our OSGeo
> Projects and this committee itself.  No one has addressed those
> examples or proposed solutions to how to keep the committee
> functional.

As just an observer of this list, I should probably refrain from jumping into
this discussion, but anyway here are my 2 cents.

Quorum requirements just don't work with volunteer communities like the OSGeo
ones.
As Daniel, Eli and perhaps others already pointed, many OSGeo committees and
projects use :
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
or variations of that.
And those were the ones that probably applied to the conference committee by
default before the last votes.

They perhaps don't look super democratic (no quorum, just two +1 - and from
experience it is sometimes difficult to get the two +1 ! -, veto, minimalist
voting period, etc.), but that have proved to work during the last 10 years.
Changing voting rules is a tricky business.

--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

R: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Maria Antonia Brovelli
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman
Dear Steven
The motion didn't pass. 
Therefore we will vote as in the past for the other items.
Many thanks.
Best regards.
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Data: 29/09/2016 19:32 (GMT+01:00)
A: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

The voting for the amendment has closed.

The votes are:
+1 = 5 (Maria, Venka, David D, Darrel & Sanghee)
+0 = 1 (Cameron)
-1 = 1 (Steven but not a veto)
No vote received = 9 others

There is an irony to this result. If we apply the amended voting rules that were being voted upon the motion would have failed to reach a quorum. Had we used the Committee Guidelines that the amendment seeks to replace this amendment would have been passed.

Perhaps those proposing the amendment would like to suggest how we should proceed? I fear that we are in danger of succumbing to voter fatigue if we extend this vote and nag those who have less interest to vote (perhaps some committee members are mainly interested in helping with the annual selection of a FOSS4G than they are in the minutiae of committee policies and procedures).

In an endeavour to reach consensus and move on from this topic I suggest that we adopt the amendment (with an additional clause that allows the committee chair to use his discretion where the quorum has not been reached but there is a strong majority of those voting in favour and no veto) to avoid us getting stuck in this situation in the future.

I have redrafted the original motion to include the amendment that Maria proposed (I have included the full wording from the Board Voting section of the wiki amended as necessary). Could Maria and Venka confirm that they are in agreement with this course of action and with the amended text below.

Maria (and I believe Venka) had suggested 4 additional amendments to the original motion. Can you advise whether you wish to progress those amendments or whether you are content with the motion as currently amended?

I apologise to everyone on the list for the extent to which this topic has clogged your mail boxes, I had not expected the proposal to prompt so much comment. 

Cheers

______
Steven

AMENDED MOTION
================


Goals
=====

The conference committee have the responsibility to run the selection process and voting for the global FOSS4G, to vote on other proposals submitted to the committee and to advise the board on other matters relating to FOSS4G events.

Role of the Committee and the broader community on the Conference_Dev list
============================================================

1) Voting Procedure
  1. Motions will be decided upon by an open vote of all Committee members in a clearly designated separate mail thread (+1/-1) over a minimum of two business days
  2. each Committee member may vote “+1” to indicate support for a motion.
  3. each Committee member may vote “-1” to veto a motion, but must provide clear reasoning and alternate approaches to resolving the problem within the two business days.
  4. A vote of "-0" indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect. A "0" indicates no opinion, but has no effect. A "+0" indicate mild support, but has no effect.
  5. A motion will be passed once the voting period has ended if a quorum of at least 50% of the committee members place a vote, and no vetoes are received (-1).
  6. In the event that a quorum (50% of members) has not been reached, the chair may use its discretion to either extend the voting period or declare the motion passed if other than the quorum it has met the requirements of 5 above
  7. If a motion is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote, which will be decided by a majority of voting members indicating +1 (i.e no veto) to pass it (subject to a minimum of 50% voting).

2) Election of the conference committee is by secret vote and restricted to the remaining conference committee members and board members who are not members of the conference committee.

3) FOSS4G Selection - All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all participants. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members only. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from vote. In the event of a disagreement the committee chair will decide.

Votes in 2 and 3 are to an online voting service or by email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair

Conference Committee membership policy and process
==========================================

1) The conference committee aims to retain up to 11 active members, preferably an odd number

2) The committee aims for half of these members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of the most recent FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member

3) The remaining membership is open, ideally attracting people from earlier past chairs or active LOC members from past Global, Regional FOSS4G or related conferences

4) Each year (after FOSS4G) the 3 committee members should stand down:
a) The longest standing past FOSS4G chair
b) The longest standing 2 committee members remaining

5) Each year, prior to putting out the Global FOSS4G RfP, the old committee should vote for their replacement committee, using the above criteria as voting guidelines.  OSGeo Board members who are not on the conference committee will also be invited to vote.

6) Past committee members including those who have stood down due to length of service may stand for re-election

7) 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.




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

R: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Maria Antonia Brovelli
In reply to this post by Eli Adam
Dear Eli
You were right. Being a newcomer I was not aware about this situation.
Thanks and best.
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
Data: 29/09/2016 19:45 (GMT+01:00)
A: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Cc: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

I thought that I had 15 more minutes to comment,
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

This amendment has only gotten participation of 7/16 committee members
which demonstrates exactly why to not pass it.

No one (Maria included) has responded to my real world OSGeo project
examples (including the conference committee selecting the FOSS4G bid)
of less than 50% participation.
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-September/003998.html.
Also, no one has commented on the apparent unpopularity of calling to
remove committee members but the mathematical need for that to keep
the committee functional with a 50% quorum requirement.

3 of the 7 who participated, expressed favor for a 25% or lower quorum.

Maria, to keep the committee functional, will you bring a proposal to
remove the 9/16 committee members who didn't vote?

If I were to vote on this, I would vote -1.  Right now it is obvious
to me that the committee will become defunct with a 50% quorum
requirement.  I have provided numerous counterexamples from our OSGeo
Projects and this committee itself.  No one has addressed those
examples or proposed solutions to how to keep the committee
functional.

Best regards, Eli

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have moved the summary of these discussions and voting from the main
> Conference Committee page on the wiki to a separate page at
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions Feel
> free to correct any omissions or misunderstandings
>
> When the committee has voted on all of the amendments and has adopted
> policies on membership and voting, those policies should be added to the
> main CC page on the wiki
>
> Cheers
> ______
> Steven
>
>
> On 28 Sep 2016, at 06:10, 신상희 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> +1 for Maria's proposal to have a 50% quorum.
>
> Sanghee
>
>
> 2016. 9. 27. 오후 6:14에 "Darrell Fuhriman" <[hidden email]>님이 작성:
>>
>> +1 for me, and my sentiments are similar to David’s.
>>
>> Darrell
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2016, at 08:10, David William Bitner <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I am +1 on Maria's point 1 to have a 50% quorum. Personally, I'd be happy
>> going down to 25% especially if we keep a larger committee than just 11, but
>> 50% is reasonable and better than 100% or having the quorum be undefined.
>>
>> While the vote on hosting the annual conference is one of the biggest
>> decisions that OSGeo makes every year, it is important to note that this
>> committee's vote is simply a recommendation to the Board. We can all hope
>> that the Board takes this recommendation very seriously, but I would rather
>> only have people who actually are paying attention and reading all the bids
>> really participate. What we deliver to the Board is not simply a vote, but
>> we also provide a conversation, recorded on this list, that expresses any
>> thoughts and concerns we all have based on our experiences running FOSS4G's
>> and other events.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

Re: R: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

stevenfeldman
In reply to this post by Maria Antonia Brovelli
Maria

I am confused. I think you mean that the amendment did not pass? Are you withdrawing your veto of the original motion (which had support from a substantial majority of the committee)?

What do you mean by "Therefore we will vote as in the past for the other items."?  What other items? The only voting rules we had in the past were the Committee Guidelines, which were incorporated into the original motion. Can you clarify?

Venka could you advise whether your veto still stands following this vote on Maria's amendment?

This example of our decision making process cannot be appropriate for a voluntary community. Please let's bring this to a conclusion



Steven 


On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:46, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Steven
The motion didn't pass. 
Therefore we will vote as in the past for the other items.
Many thanks.
Best regards.
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Data: 29/09/2016 19:32 (GMT+01:00)
A: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

The voting for the amendment has closed.

The votes are:
+1 = 5 (Maria, Venka, David D, Darrel & Sanghee)
+0 = 1 (Cameron)
-1 = 1 (Steven but not a veto)
No vote received = 9 others

There is an irony to this result. If we apply the amended voting rules that were being voted upon the motion would have failed to reach a quorum. Had we used the Committee Guidelines that the amendment seeks to replace this amendment would have been passed.

Perhaps those proposing the amendment would like to suggest how we should proceed? I fear that we are in danger of succumbing to voter fatigue if we extend this vote and nag those who have less interest to vote (perhaps some committee members are mainly interested in helping with the annual selection of a FOSS4G than they are in the minutiae of committee policies and procedures).

In an endeavour to reach consensus and move on from this topic I suggest that we adopt the amendment (with an additional clause that allows the committee chair to use his discretion where the quorum has not been reached but there is a strong majority of those voting in favour and no veto) to avoid us getting stuck in this situation in the future.

I have redrafted the original motion to include the amendment that Maria proposed (I have included the full wording from the Board Voting section of the wiki amended as necessary). Could Maria and Venka confirm that they are in agreement with this course of action and with the amended text below.

Maria (and I believe Venka) had suggested 4 additional amendments to the original motion. Can you advise whether you wish to progress those amendments or whether you are content with the motion as currently amended?

I apologise to everyone on the list for the extent to which this topic has clogged your mail boxes, I had not expected the proposal to prompt so much comment. 

Cheers

______
Steven

AMENDED MOTION
================


Goals
=====

The conference committee have the responsibility to run the selection process and voting for the global FOSS4G, to vote on other proposals submitted to the committee and to advise the board on other matters relating to FOSS4G events.

Role of the Committee and the broader community on the Conference_Dev list
============================================================

1) Voting Procedure
  1. Motions will be decided upon by an open vote of all Committee members in a clearly designated separate mail thread (+1/-1) over a minimum of two business days
  2. each Committee member may vote “+1” to indicate support for a motion.
  3. each Committee member may vote “-1” to veto a motion, but must provide clear reasoning and alternate approaches to resolving the problem within the two business days.
  4. A vote of "-0" indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect. A "0" indicates no opinion, but has no effect. A "+0" indicate mild support, but has no effect.
  5. A motion will be passed once the voting period has ended if a quorum of at least 50% of the committee members place a vote, and no vetoes are received (-1).
  6. In the event that a quorum (50% of members) has not been reached, the chair may use its discretion to either extend the voting period or declare the motion passed if other than the quorum it has met the requirements of 5 above
  7. If a motion is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote, which will be decided by a majority of voting members indicating +1 (i.e no veto) to pass it (subject to a minimum of 50% voting).

2) Election of the conference committee is by secret vote and restricted to the remaining conference committee members and board members who are not members of the conference committee.

3) FOSS4G Selection - All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all participants. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members only. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from vote. In the event of a disagreement the committee chair will decide.

Votes in 2 and 3 are to an online voting service or by email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair

Conference Committee membership policy and process
==========================================

1) The conference committee aims to retain up to 11 active members, preferably an odd number

2) The committee aims for half of these members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of the most recent FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member

3) The remaining membership is open, ideally attracting people from earlier past chairs or active LOC members from past Global, Regional FOSS4G or related conferences

4) Each year (after FOSS4G) the 3 committee members should stand down:
a) The longest standing past FOSS4G chair
b) The longest standing 2 committee members remaining

5) Each year, prior to putting out the Global FOSS4G RfP, the old committee should vote for their replacement committee, using the above criteria as voting guidelines.  OSGeo Board members who are not on the conference committee will also be invited to vote.

6) Past committee members including those who have stood down due to length of service may stand for re-election

7) 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.




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

Re: R: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
Dear All,

Sorry if this mail sounds a little mixed-up as
I am trying to answer multiple points raised
after the voting status on the amended motion
was declared.

The way I look at the 25% quorum threshold, suggested by Eli,
is that it is close to the "benevolent dictatorship"
decision model. One of our projects in incubation
was asked to retire since the lead developer proposed
to adopt such a model for the project PSC.

Our Charter Member rules allow for retiring
members who have not voted over a continuous period
of two years. Since charter members vote only for
the board election, this means that they are retired
if they do not cast their one vote (for Board election)
in consecutive years.

Considering the above, I suggest that the Amended Motion
for quorum be tabled for one last time with a specific
indication that members who have not voted for
the motion in two (or three) consecutive rounds of voting
will be considered as retired and the votes by the
members who participate in the third round of voting
would be considered valid.

If we still have only 7 members voting for the third round
of voting, the majority votes among the 7 could be
used if the motion has passed or not.

Regarding the query from Steve whether some of us would
like reconsider our votes in the initial round of voting,
I think, that since the voting results were already
declared, it would be better to decide with the third
and final round of voting.

Best

Venka


On 2016/09/30 7:48, Steven Feldman wrote:

> Maria
>
> I am confused. I think you mean that the amendment did not pass? Are you withdrawing your veto of the original motion (which had support from a substantial majority of the committee)?
>
> What do you mean by "Therefore we will vote as in the past for the other items."?  What other items? The only voting rules we had in the past were the Committee Guidelines, which were incorporated into the original motion. Can you clarify?
>
> Venka could you advise whether your veto still stands following this vote on Maria's amendment?
>
> This example of our decision making process cannot be appropriate for a voluntary community. Please let's bring this to a conclusion
>
>
>
> Steven
>
>
>> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:46, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Steven
>> The motion didn't pass.
>> Therefore we will vote as in the past for the other items.
>> Many thanks.
>> Best regards.
>> Maria
>>
>>
>>
>> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>>
>>
>> -------- Messaggio originale --------
>> Da: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
>> Data: 29/09/2016 19:32 (GMT+01:00)
>> A: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>
>> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
>>
>> The voting for the amendment has closed.
>>
>> The votes are:
>> +1 = 5 (Maria, Venka, David D, Darrel & Sanghee)
>> +0 = 1 (Cameron)
>> -1 = 1 (Steven but not a veto)
>> No vote received = 9 others
>>
>> There is an irony to this result. If we apply the amended voting rules that were being voted upon the motion would have failed to reach a quorum. Had we used the Committee Guidelines that the amendment seeks to replace this amendment would have been passed.
>>
>> Perhaps those proposing the amendment would like to suggest how we should proceed? I fear that we are in danger of succumbing to voter fatigue if we extend this vote and nag those who have less interest to vote (perhaps some committee members are mainly interested in helping with the annual selection of a FOSS4G than they are in the minutiae of committee policies and procedures).
>>
>> In an endeavour to reach consensus and move on from this topic I suggest that we adopt the amendment (with an additional clause that allows the committee chair to use his discretion where the quorum has not been reached but there is a strong majority of those voting in favour and no veto) to avoid us getting stuck in this situation in the future.
>>
>> I have redrafted the original motion to include the amendment that Maria proposed (I have included the full wording from the Board Voting section of the wiki amended as necessary). Could Maria and Venka confirm that they are in agreement with this course of action and with the amended text below.
>>
>> Maria (and I believe Venka) had suggested 4 additional amendments to the original motion. Can you advise whether you wish to progress those amendments or whether you are content with the motion as currently amended?
>>
>> I apologise to everyone on the list for the extent to which this topic has clogged your mail boxes, I had not expected the proposal to prompt so much comment.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> AMENDED MOTION
>> ================
>>
>>
>> Goals
>> =====
>>
>> The conference committee have the responsibility to run the selection process and voting for the global FOSS4G, to vote on other proposals submitted to the committee and to advise  the board on other matters relating to FOSS4G events.
>>
>> Role of the Committee and the broader community on the Conference_Dev list
>> ============================================================
>>
>> 1) Voting Procedure
>> Motions will be decided upon by an open vote of all Committee members in a clearly designated separate mail thread (+1/-1) over a minimum of two business days
>> each Committee member may vote “+1” to indicate support for a motion.
>> each Committee member may vote “-1” to veto a motion, but must provide clear reasoning and alternate approaches to resolving the problem within the two business days.
>> A vote of "-0" indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect. A "0" indicates no opinion, but has no effect. A "+0" indicate mild support, but has no effect.
>> A motion will be passed once the voting period has ended if a quorum of at least 50% of the committee members place a vote, and no vetoes are received (-1).
>> In the event that a quorum (50% of members) has not been reached, the chair may use its discretion to either extend the voting period or declare the motion passed if other than the quorum it has met the requirements of 5 above
>> If a motion is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote, which will be decided by a majority of voting members indicating +1 (i.e no veto) to pass it (subject to a minimum of 50% voting).
>>
>> 2) Election of the conference committee is by secret vote and restricted to the remaining conference committee members and board members who are not members of the conference committee.
>>
>> 3) FOSS4G Selection - All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all participants. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members only. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from vote. In the event of a disagreement the committee chair will decide.
>>
>> Votes in 2 and 3 are to an online voting service or by email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair
>>
>> Conference Committee membership policy and process
>> ==========================================
>>
>> 1) The conference committee aims to retain up to 11 active members, preferably an odd number
>>
>> 2) The committee aims for half of these members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of the most recent FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically  be invited to become a member
>>
>> 3) The remaining membership is open, ideally attracting people from earlier past chairs or active LOC members from past Global, Regional FOSS4G or related conferences
>>
>> 4) Each year (after FOSS4G) the 3 committee members should stand down:
>> a) The longest standing past FOSS4G chair
>> b) The longest standing 2 committee members remaining
>>
>> 5) Each year, prior to putting out the Global FOSS4G RfP, the old committee should vote for their replacement committee, using the above criteria as voting guidelines.  OSGeo Board members who are not on the conference committee will also be invited to vote.
>>
>> 6) Past committee members including those who have stood down due to length of service may stand for re-election
>>
>> 7) 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>

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

R: R: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Maria Antonia Brovelli
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman
Steven 
I'm also confused and demoralised as well. The main problem in my opinion is the inactivity of this commission (it could be also of other commissions, but I'm not part of other commissions). I'm surprised about how the main problem is to find an easy solution when the problem is why 9 people didn't find the time (= interest) of voting.
Even if volunteers and, in my opinion, more as volunteers we have to be reliable people committed with our community.
Unfortunately I'm not able to notice that attitude in the last voting. 
If I have to tell you the truth, I'm, above all, sad and surprise that for the most of people this is a normal situation at which we have simply to put a patch.
Sorry for being so direct, obviously I'm not thinking of you, who have been doing so much for this Committee ( thanks again) or other people, but the situation is really and definitely different with respect of that I thought to find in an OSGeo Committee.
Good day to everybody.
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Data: 30/09/2016 00:48 (GMT+01:00)
A: Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]>, Conference Dev <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: R: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Maria

I am confused. I think you mean that the amendment did not pass? Are you withdrawing your veto of the original motion (which had support from a substantial majority of the committee)?

What do you mean by "Therefore we will vote as in the past for the other items."?  What other items? The only voting rules we had in the past were the Committee Guidelines, which were incorporated into the original motion. Can you clarify?

Venka could you advise whether your veto still stands following this vote on Maria's amendment?

This example of our decision making process cannot be appropriate for a voluntary community. Please let's bring this to a conclusion



Steven 


On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:46, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Steven
The motion didn't pass. 
Therefore we will vote as in the past for the other items.
Many thanks.
Best regards.
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Data: 29/09/2016 19:32 (GMT+01:00)
A: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

The voting for the amendment has closed.

The votes are:
+1 = 5 (Maria, Venka, David D, Darrel & Sanghee)
+0 = 1 (Cameron)
-1 = 1 (Steven but not a veto)
No vote received = 9 others

There is an irony to this result. If we apply the amended voting rules that were being voted upon the motion would have failed to reach a quorum. Had we used the Committee Guidelines that the amendment seeks to replace this amendment would have been passed.

Perhaps those proposing the amendment would like to suggest how we should proceed? I fear that we are in danger of succumbing to voter fatigue if we extend this vote and nag those who have less interest to vote (perhaps some committee members are mainly interested in helping with the annual selection of a FOSS4G than they are in the minutiae of committee policies and procedures).

In an endeavour to reach consensus and move on from this topic I suggest that we adopt the amendment (with an additional clause that allows the committee chair to use his discretion where the quorum has not been reached but there is a strong majority of those voting in favour and no veto) to avoid us getting stuck in this situation in the future.

I have redrafted the original motion to include the amendment that Maria proposed (I have included the full wording from the Board Voting section of the wiki amended as necessary). Could Maria and Venka confirm that they are in agreement with this course of action and with the amended text below.

Maria (and I believe Venka) had suggested 4 additional amendments to the original motion. Can you advise whether you wish to progress those amendments or whether you are content with the motion as currently amended?

I apologise to everyone on the list for the extent to which this topic has clogged your mail boxes, I had not expected the proposal to prompt so much comment. 

Cheers

______
Steven

AMENDED MOTION
================


Goals
=====

The conference committee have the responsibility to run the selection process and voting for the global FOSS4G, to vote on other proposals submitted to the committee and to advise the board on other matters relating to FOSS4G events.

Role of the Committee and the broader community on the Conference_Dev list
============================================================

1) Voting Procedure
  1. Motions will be decided upon by an open vote of all Committee members in a clearly designated separate mail thread (+1/-1) over a minimum of two business days
  2. each Committee member may vote “+1” to indicate support for a motion.
  3. each Committee member may vote “-1” to veto a motion, but must provide clear reasoning and alternate approaches to resolving the problem within the two business days.
  4. A vote of "-0" indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect. A "0" indicates no opinion, but has no effect. A "+0" indicate mild support, but has no effect.
  5. A motion will be passed once the voting period has ended if a quorum of at least 50% of the committee members place a vote, and no vetoes are received (-1).
  6. In the event that a quorum (50% of members) has not been reached, the chair may use its discretion to either extend the voting period or declare the motion passed if other than the quorum it has met the requirements of 5 above
  7. If a motion is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote, which will be decided by a majority of voting members indicating +1 (i.e no veto) to pass it (subject to a minimum of 50% voting).

2) Election of the conference committee is by secret vote and restricted to the remaining conference committee members and board members who are not members of the conference committee.

3) FOSS4G Selection - All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all participants. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members only. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from vote. In the event of a disagreement the committee chair will decide.

Votes in 2 and 3 are to an online voting service or by email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair

Conference Committee membership policy and process
==========================================

1) The conference committee aims to retain up to 11 active members, preferably an odd number

2) The committee aims for half of these members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of the most recent FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member

3) The remaining membership is open, ideally attracting people from earlier past chairs or active LOC members from past Global, Regional FOSS4G or related conferences

4) Each year (after FOSS4G) the 3 committee members should stand down:
a) The longest standing past FOSS4G chair
b) The longest standing 2 committee members remaining

5) Each year, prior to putting out the Global FOSS4G RfP, the old committee should vote for their replacement committee, using the above criteria as voting guidelines.  OSGeo Board members who are not on the conference committee will also be invited to vote.

6) Past committee members including those who have stood down due to length of service may stand for re-election

7) 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.




_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
12