Voting & commitment

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

Voting & commitment

massimiliano cannata-2

I also as non members would say that if 9 Committee members don't feel to have to vote then they should be removwd. I like more a Committee of 3 Active people rather then 100 passive coming out Just when the want. To me a committente is a committente being payd or volountary based. Can you immagine volountary Red cross people deciding not to wake up to wake a surgery?

My 1 franc
Maxi


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

Re: Voting & commitment

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 9/30/2016 8:16 AM, massimiliano cannata wrote:

> I also as non members would say that if 9 Committee members don't feel to
> have to vote then they should be removwd. I like more a Committee of 3
> Active people rather then 100 passive coming out Just when the want. To me
> a committente is a committente being payd or volountary based. Can you
> immagine volountary Red cross people deciding not to wake up to wake a
> surgery?
>
> My 1 franc
> Maxi
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Voting & commitment

Eli Adam
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

25% quorum threshold and "benevolent dictatorship" have nearly nothing
in common.

In benevolent dictatorship 1 person can overrule a 90% majority.  This
is entirely anti-democratic.

In low (or no quorum), people can participate as it suits and
interests them.  If people are fine with the already voted stance,
then they don't need to throw in their +1.  If people are satisfied
with the motion going either way, they certainly don't need to add
their +0.  During contentious or interesting topics that also fit the
timing of activities in people's personal lives, then there is often
high participation.  While participation may range from 1%-100%, the
result is consensus or at least majority.  Majority to consensus is
entirely democratic.  People choosing to not vote is not a loss of
democracy.  The potential is there if people are so inclined.

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

Re: Voting & commitment

David William Bitner-3
I also think in the case of this committee, there is one vote a year that the folks here universally care about: the FOSS4G selection.

Other than that, people clearly have far less energy to spend paying attention to things like governance issues. Low/no quorum can handle this even with a large overall pool of committee members as folks who only care about that one vote can "ride it out" through the year, but pay close attention come rfp/selection time.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

25% quorum threshold and "benevolent dictatorship" have nearly nothing
in common.

In benevolent dictatorship 1 person can overrule a 90% majority.  This
is entirely anti-democratic.

In low (or no quorum), people can participate as it suits and
interests them.  If people are fine with the already voted stance,
then they don't need to throw in their +1.  If people are satisfied
with the motion going either way, they certainly don't need to add
their +0.  During contentious or interesting topics that also fit the
timing of activities in people's personal lives, then there is often
high participation.  While participation may range from 1%-100%, the
result is consensus or at least majority.  Majority to consensus is
entirely democratic.  People choosing to not vote is not a loss of
democracy.  The potential is there if people are so inclined.

Best regards, Eli
_______________________________________________
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: Voting & commitment

massimiliano cannata-2

Dear all,
trying to mediate positions I suggest that this Committee could have two bodies:

1) Foss4g voting members that vote once a year

2) a steering group that take care of all the other matters that needs to be decider and agreed

Sound suitable?

Maxi


Il 30 set 2016 7:30 PM, "David William Bitner" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
I also think in the case of this committee, there is one vote a year that the folks here universally care about: the FOSS4G selection.

Other than that, people clearly have far less energy to spend paying attention to things like governance issues. Low/no quorum can handle this even with a large overall pool of committee members as folks who only care about that one vote can "ride it out" through the year, but pay close attention come rfp/selection time.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

25% quorum threshold and "benevolent dictatorship" have nearly nothing
in common.

In benevolent dictatorship 1 person can overrule a 90% majority.  This
is entirely anti-democratic.

In low (or no quorum), people can participate as it suits and
interests them.  If people are fine with the already voted stance,
then they don't need to throw in their +1.  If people are satisfied
with the motion going either way, they certainly don't need to add
their +0.  During contentious or interesting topics that also fit the
timing of activities in people's personal lives, then there is often
high participation.  While participation may range from 1%-100%, the
result is consensus or at least majority.  Majority to consensus is
entirely democratic.  People choosing to not vote is not a loss of
democracy.  The potential is there if people are so inclined.

Best regards, Eli
_______________________________________________
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

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

Re: Voting & commitment

Gert-Jan

Brilliant idea.

 

 

Van: Conference_dev [mailto:[hidden email]] Namens massimiliano cannata
Verzonden: vrijdag 30 september 2016 19:45
Aan: [hidden email]; <[hidden email]>
Onderwerp: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Voting & commitment

 

Dear all,
trying to mediate positions I suggest that this Committee could have two bodies:

1) Foss4g voting members that vote once a year

2) a steering group that take care of all the other matters that needs to be decider and agreed

Sound suitable?

Maxi

 

Il 30 set 2016 7:30 PM, "David William Bitner" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

I also think in the case of this committee, there is one vote a year that the folks here universally care about: the FOSS4G selection.

 

Other than that, people clearly have far less energy to spend paying attention to things like governance issues. Low/no quorum can handle this even with a large overall pool of committee members as folks who only care about that one vote can "ride it out" through the year, but pay close attention come rfp/selection time.

 

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

25% quorum threshold and "benevolent dictatorship" have nearly nothing
in common.

In benevolent dictatorship 1 person can overrule a 90% majority.  This
is entirely anti-democratic.

In low (or no quorum), people can participate as it suits and
interests them.  If people are fine with the already voted stance,
then they don't need to throw in their +1.  If people are satisfied
with the motion going either way, they certainly don't need to add
their +0.  During contentious or interesting topics that also fit the
timing of activities in people's personal lives, then there is often
high participation.  While participation may range from 1%-100%, the
result is consensus or at least majority.  Majority to consensus is
entirely democratic.  People choosing to not vote is not a loss of
democracy.  The potential is there if people are so inclined.

Best regards, Eli

_______________________________________________
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


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

Re: Voting & commitment

Peter Batty
In reply to this post by David William Bitner-3
Yes, I was going to make a similar point. The primary task that this committee carries out is the annual selection of the next FOSS4G team, using a voting process that is unaffected by the current discussion. We also occasionally (usually once a year) vote to add a new member, this process is (I think) changing to use a different voting process, also unaffected by the current discussion (well I guess it was part of this originally but we have moved on).

We have had over 150 emails now I think on this topic, to address something that almost never happens (that this committee votes on matters other than the previous two items I mentioned). We have spent way more time discussing this than I have ever seen the committee spend discussing a FOSS4G selection. We all have a finite amount of time we can devote to OSGeo work and I would prefer to see this group focus its energy on conference related matters. 

So I'm sorry but I certainly have "voter fatigue" on this issue as Steven said. This is not intended to be a criticism of anyone and I appreciate the passion and energy of those of you who want to improve our voting process. I voted in favor of the first motion but missed the second vote among the volume of mail that came through on this topic. 

I think that calls for people to stand down who didn't vote on this most recent motion are misguided. I serve on this committee as I want to help contribute to us continuing to have great FOSS4G conferences, and I think I have relevant experience to help with that. But I'm afraid I have a rapidly diminishing enthusiasm for further discussion on modifying a voting system that is almost never used by this committee. 

So anyway, I really don't mean this to sound like a negative email, but I would like to encourage those of you who have a strong opinion on voting processes to find a way to bring this matter to a conclusion soon. Then the rest of us whose focus and interest is on conference related matters will be happy to use the new process on the very rare occasions that we need it :).

Cheers,
    Peter.

P.S. for what it's worth, my main thought on organization is that I prefer a smaller, more engaged conference committee. I also have a slight leaning to a simple majority vote as I think it helps to make decisions more quickly, and we are not always good at that :).

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, David William Bitner <[hidden email]> wrote:
I also think in the case of this committee, there is one vote a year that the folks here universally care about: the FOSS4G selection.

Other than that, people clearly have far less energy to spend paying attention to things like governance issues. Low/no quorum can handle this even with a large overall pool of committee members as folks who only care about that one vote can "ride it out" through the year, but pay close attention come rfp/selection time.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

25% quorum threshold and "benevolent dictatorship" have nearly nothing
in common.

In benevolent dictatorship 1 person can overrule a 90% majority.  This
is entirely anti-democratic.

In low (or no quorum), people can participate as it suits and
interests them.  If people are fine with the already voted stance,
then they don't need to throw in their +1.  If people are satisfied
with the motion going either way, they certainly don't need to add
their +0.  During contentious or interesting topics that also fit the
timing of activities in people's personal lives, then there is often
high participation.  While participation may range from 1%-100%, the
result is consensus or at least majority.  Majority to consensus is
entirely democratic.  People choosing to not vote is not a loss of
democracy.  The potential is there if people are so inclined.

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



--
************************************
David William Bitner
dbSpatial LLC
<a href="tel:612-424-9932" value="+16124249932" target="_blank">612-424-9932

_______________________________________________
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: Voting & commitment

Jeroen Ticheler - GeoCat
+1 for Peter. 

The procedural discussions, membership clean up rounds (more often than voting rounds) and statements about the minimum qualifications of the membership made me step down. (Indeed I abused the proposed new guidelines as an escape route ;-) ). While I've always taken the selection work (reading the proposals) very seriously, have organized recurring events and have been involved in osgeo right from the start, these processes have made me feel unwelcome and uncomfortable. I am convinced that responsibility and commitment is worth at least as much as having run a FOSS4G conference. The recurring discussions on who is eligible to be member and is allowed to vote have been demotivating to me. I wouldn't be surprised if others have similar feelings but I can only speak for myself. 

To me OSGeo is a do-ocracy, I see bureaucracy step in more often and think it can be destructive for a volunteer organization that has transparency, openness and trust in each other as core values. I've previously opposed the formation of a Code of conduct Committee. Not because I think people should be offended in any way, or shouldn't be protected if an offense occurs. But because I think it is a step away from being truly open, trusting and respectful towards each other within OSGeo. Extra bureaucracy and guidelines aren't very helpful for that IMO, it often just creates barriers to get things done. 

Cheers and keep up the good work!
Jeroen

Op 30 sep. 2016 om 22:05 heeft Peter Batty <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Yes, I was going to make a similar point. The primary task that this committee carries out is the annual selection of the next FOSS4G team, using a voting process that is unaffected by the current discussion. We also occasionally (usually once a year) vote to add a new member, this process is (I think) changing to use a different voting process, also unaffected by the current discussion (well I guess it was part of this originally but we have moved on).

We have had over 150 emails now I think on this topic, to address something that almost never happens (that this committee votes on matters other than the previous two items I mentioned). We have spent way more time discussing this than I have ever seen the committee spend discussing a FOSS4G selection. We all have a finite amount of time we can devote to OSGeo work and I would prefer to see this group focus its energy on conference related matters. 

So I'm sorry but I certainly have "voter fatigue" on this issue as Steven said. This is not intended to be a criticism of anyone and I appreciate the passion and energy of those of you who want to improve our voting process. I voted in favor of the first motion but missed the second vote among the volume of mail that came through on this topic. 

I think that calls for people to stand down who didn't vote on this most recent motion are misguided. I serve on this committee as I want to help contribute to us continuing to have great FOSS4G conferences, and I think I have relevant experience to help with that. But I'm afraid I have a rapidly diminishing enthusiasm for further discussion on modifying a voting system that is almost never used by this committee. 

So anyway, I really don't mean this to sound like a negative email, but I would like to encourage those of you who have a strong opinion on voting processes to find a way to bring this matter to a conclusion soon. Then the rest of us whose focus and interest is on conference related matters will be happy to use the new process on the very rare occasions that we need it :).

Cheers,
    Peter.

P.S. for what it's worth, my main thought on organization is that I prefer a smaller, more engaged conference committee. I also have a slight leaning to a simple majority vote as I think it helps to make decisions more quickly, and we are not always good at that :).

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, David William Bitner <[hidden email]> wrote:
I also think in the case of this committee, there is one vote a year that the folks here universally care about: the FOSS4G selection.

Other than that, people clearly have far less energy to spend paying attention to things like governance issues. Low/no quorum can handle this even with a large overall pool of committee members as folks who only care about that one vote can "ride it out" through the year, but pay close attention come rfp/selection time.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

25% quorum threshold and "benevolent dictatorship" have nearly nothing
in common.

In benevolent dictatorship 1 person can overrule a 90% majority.  This
is entirely anti-democratic.

In low (or no quorum), people can participate as it suits and
interests them.  If people are fine with the already voted stance,
then they don't need to throw in their +1.  If people are satisfied
with the motion going either way, they certainly don't need to add
their +0.  During contentious or interesting topics that also fit the
timing of activities in people's personal lives, then there is often
high participation.  While participation may range from 1%-100%, the
result is consensus or at least majority.  Majority to consensus is
entirely democratic.  People choosing to not vote is not a loss of
democracy.  The potential is there if people are so inclined.

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



--
************************************
David William Bitner
dbSpatial LLC
<a href="tel:612-424-9932" value="+16124249932" target="_blank">612-424-9932

_______________________________________________
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
|

R: Voting & commitment

Maria Antonia Brovelli
Dear All
Thanks a lot for your detailed and enlightening comments. 
I have understood now that the aim of this Committee is just to select the next FOSS4G. For the governance issues that I wrongly believed  being part of our discussion, I will refer to the Board presenting  to the next Board meeting a motion about the governance of the Committees. 
Enjoy your week end!! 
Maria 





Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Jeroen Ticheler <[hidden email]>
Data: 01/10/2016 00:08 (GMT+01:00)
A: Peter Batty <[hidden email]>
Cc: "<[hidden email]>" <[hidden email]>, Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Voting & commitment

+1 for Peter. 

The procedural discussions, membership clean up rounds (more often than voting rounds) and statements about the minimum qualifications of the membership made me step down. (Indeed I abused the proposed new guidelines as an escape route ;-) ). While I've always taken the selection work (reading the proposals) very seriously, have organized recurring events and have been involved in osgeo right from the start, these processes have made me feel unwelcome and uncomfortable. I am convinced that responsibility and commitment is worth at least as much as having run a FOSS4G conference. The recurring discussions on who is eligible to be member and is allowed to vote have been demotivating to me. I wouldn't be surprised if others have similar feelings but I can only speak for myself. 

To me OSGeo is a do-ocracy, I see bureaucracy step in more often and think it can be destructive for a volunteer organization that has transparency, openness and trust in each other as core values. I've previously opposed the formation of a Code of conduct Committee. Not because I think people should be offended in any way, or shouldn't be protected if an offense occurs. But because I think it is a step away from being truly open, trusting and respectful towards each other within OSGeo. Extra bureaucracy and guidelines aren't very helpful for that IMO, it often just creates barriers to get things done. 

Cheers and keep up the good work!
Jeroen

Op 30 sep. 2016 om 22:05 heeft Peter Batty <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Yes, I was going to make a similar point. The primary task that this committee carries out is the annual selection of the next FOSS4G team, using a voting process that is unaffected by the current discussion. We also occasionally (usually once a year) vote to add a new member, this process is (I think) changing to use a different voting process, also unaffected by the current discussion (well I guess it was part of this originally but we have moved on).

We have had over 150 emails now I think on this topic, to address something that almost never happens (that this committee votes on matters other than the previous two items I mentioned). We have spent way more time discussing this than I have ever seen the committee spend discussing a FOSS4G selection. We all have a finite amount of time we can devote to OSGeo work and I would prefer to see this group focus its energy on conference related matters. 

So I'm sorry but I certainly have "voter fatigue" on this issue as Steven said. This is not intended to be a criticism of anyone and I appreciate the passion and energy of those of you who want to improve our voting process. I voted in favor of the first motion but missed the second vote among the volume of mail that came through on this topic. 

I think that calls for people to stand down who didn't vote on this most recent motion are misguided. I serve on this committee as I want to help contribute to us continuing to have great FOSS4G conferences, and I think I have relevant experience to help with that. But I'm afraid I have a rapidly diminishing enthusiasm for further discussion on modifying a voting system that is almost never used by this committee. 

So anyway, I really don't mean this to sound like a negative email, but I would like to encourage those of you who have a strong opinion on voting processes to find a way to bring this matter to a conclusion soon. Then the rest of us whose focus and interest is on conference related matters will be happy to use the new process on the very rare occasions that we need it :).

Cheers,
    Peter.

P.S. for what it's worth, my main thought on organization is that I prefer a smaller, more engaged conference committee. I also have a slight leaning to a simple majority vote as I think it helps to make decisions more quickly, and we are not always good at that :).

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, David William Bitner <[hidden email]> wrote:
I also think in the case of this committee, there is one vote a year that the folks here universally care about: the FOSS4G selection.

Other than that, people clearly have far less energy to spend paying attention to things like governance issues. Low/no quorum can handle this even with a large overall pool of committee members as folks who only care about that one vote can "ride it out" through the year, but pay close attention come rfp/selection time.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

25% quorum threshold and "benevolent dictatorship" have nearly nothing
in common.

In benevolent dictatorship 1 person can overrule a 90% majority.  This
is entirely anti-democratic.

In low (or no quorum), people can participate as it suits and
interests them.  If people are fine with the already voted stance,
then they don't need to throw in their +1.  If people are satisfied
with the motion going either way, they certainly don't need to add
their +0.  During contentious or interesting topics that also fit the
timing of activities in people's personal lives, then there is often
high participation.  While participation may range from 1%-100%, the
result is consensus or at least majority.  Majority to consensus is
entirely democratic.  People choosing to not vote is not a loss of
democracy.  The potential is there if people are so inclined.

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



--
************************************
David William Bitner
dbSpatial LLC
<a href="tel:612-424-9932" value="&#43;16124249932" target="_blank">612-424-9932

_______________________________________________
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: Voting & commitment

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
Dear All,

I agree that we go ahead with evaluation and selection
of FOSS4G-2018 with the present committee including
Jeroen and others who may wish to contribute to
the discussions on the proposals and the selection
process.

Matters related to the governance of CC can be taken
up separately after seeking clarifications from the
board before we change things.

Best

Venka

P.S. Despite the fatigue brought about due to the large
volume of mail exchanges on CC list recently,
I am glad that our recent discussions have brought about
a better understanding of each others opinions.

On 10/1/2016 7:36 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:

> Dear All Thanks a lot for your detailed and enlightening comments. I
> have understood now that the aim of this Committee is just to select
> the next FOSS4G. For the governance issues that I wrongly believed
> being part of our discussion, I will refer to the Board presenting
> to the next Board meeting a motion about the governance of the
> Committees. Enjoy your week end!! Maria
>
>
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale -------- Da: Jeroen Ticheler
> <[hidden email]> Data: 01/10/2016 00:08 (GMT+01:00) A:
> Peter Batty <[hidden email]> Cc: "<[hidden email]>"
> <[hidden email]>, Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Voting & commitment
>
> +1 for Peter.
>
> The procedural discussions, membership clean up rounds (more often
> than voting rounds) and statements about the minimum qualifications
> of the membership made me step down. (Indeed I abused the proposed
> new guidelines as an escape route ;-) ). While I've always taken the
> selection work (reading the proposals) very seriously, have organized
> recurring events and have been involved in osgeo right from the
> start, these processes have made me feel unwelcome and uncomfortable.
> I am convinced that responsibility and commitment is worth at least
> as much as having run a FOSS4G conference. The recurring discussions
> on who is eligible to be member and is allowed to vote have been
> demotivating to me. I wouldn't be surprised if others have similar
> feelings but I can only speak for myself.
>
> To me OSGeo is a do-ocracy, I see bureaucracy step in more often and
> think it can be destructive for a volunteer organization that has
> transparency, openness and trust in each other as core values. I've
> previously opposed the formation of a Code of conduct Committee. Not
> because I think people should be offended in any way, or shouldn't be
> protected if an offense occurs. But because I think it is a step away
> from being truly open, trusting and respectful towards each other
> within OSGeo. Extra bureaucracy and guidelines aren't very helpful
> for that IMO, it often just creates barriers to get things done.
>
> Cheers and keep up the good work! Jeroen
>
> Op 30 sep. 2016 om 22:05 heeft Peter Batty
> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Yes, I was going to make a similar point. The primary task that this
> committee carries out is the annual selection of the next FOSS4G
> team, using a voting process that is unaffected by the current
> discussion. We also occasionally (usually once a year) vote to add a
> new member, this process is (I think) changing to use a different
> voting process, also unaffected by the current discussion (well I
> guess it was part of this originally but we have moved on).
>
> We have had over 150 emails now I think on this topic, to address
> something that almost never happens (that this committee votes on
> matters other than the previous two items I mentioned). We have spent
> way more time discussing this than I have ever seen the committee
> spend discussing a FOSS4G selection. We all have a finite amount of
> time we can devote to OSGeo work and I would prefer to see this group
> focus its energy on conference related matters.
>
> So I'm sorry but I certainly have "voter fatigue" on this issue as
> Steven said. This is not intended to be a criticism of anyone and I
> appreciate the passion and energy of those of you who want to improve
> our voting process. I voted in favor of the first motion but missed
> the second vote among the volume of mail that came through on this
> topic.
>
> I think that calls for people to stand down who didn't vote on this
> most recent motion are misguided. I serve on this committee as I want
> to help contribute to us continuing to have great FOSS4G conferences,
> and I think I have relevant experience to help with that. But I'm
> afraid I have a rapidly diminishing enthusiasm for further discussion
> on modifying a voting system that is almost never used by this
> committee.
>
> So anyway, I really don't mean this to sound like a negative email,
> but I would like to encourage those of you who have a strong opinion
> on voting processes to find a way to bring this matter to a
> conclusion soon. Then the rest of us whose focus and interest is on
> conference related matters will be happy to use the new process on
> the very rare occasions that we need it :).
>
> Cheers, Peter.
>
> P.S. for what it's worth, my main thought on organization is that I
> prefer a smaller, more engaged conference committee. I also have a
> slight leaning to a simple majority vote as I think it helps to make
> decisions more quickly, and we are not always good at that :).
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, David William Bitner
> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: I also
> think in the case of this committee, there is one vote a year that
> the folks here universally care about: the FOSS4G selection.
>
> Other than that, people clearly have far less energy to spend paying
> attention to things like governance issues. Low/no quorum can handle
> this even with a large overall pool of committee members as folks who
> only care about that one vote can "ride it out" through the year, but
> pay close attention come rfp/selection time.
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eli Adam
> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: On
> Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan
> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 25% quorum threshold and "benevolent dictatorship" have nearly
> nothing in common.
>
> In benevolent dictatorship 1 person can overrule a 90% majority.
> This is entirely anti-democratic.
>
> In low (or no quorum), people can participate as it suits and
> interests them.  If people are fine with the already voted stance,
> then they don't need to throw in their +1.  If people are satisfied
> with the motion going either way, they certainly don't need to add
> their +0.  During contentious or interesting topics that also fit
> the timing of activities in people's personal lives, then there is
> often high participation.  While participation may range from
> 1%-100%, the result is consensus or at least majority.  Majority to
> consensus is entirely democratic.  People choosing to not vote is not
> a loss of democracy.  The potential is there if people are so
> inclined.
>
> Best regards, Eli _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

>
>
>
> -- ************************************ David William Bitner
> dbSpatial LLC 612-424-9932<tel:612-424-9932>
>
> _______________________________________________ Conference_dev
> mailing list
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> _______________________________________________ Conference_dev
> mailing list
> [hidden email]<mailto:[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: Voting & commitment

Peter Batty
And again, please let me reiterate that I genuinely was not intending to be critical of anyone, everyone here has good intentions and there were lots of good ideas expressed. I am pretty sure nobody thought this thread would run to 150 emails when it started! But I think that the low vote on the final motion is an indication that perhaps this group is not the best venue to decide on these governance issues. And when people start suggesting that conference committee members should stand down for not being sufficiently involved in a very detailed governance discussion, it just seemed to me that things had (unintentionally) taken a wrong turn somehow.

I think that these governance questions apply across all OSGeo committees, so it may well make sense as Maria said for those with ideas on governance to make a proposal to the board and come up with a common approach across OSGeo committees, rather than having each committee invest time in creating their own approach. Though any general approach would need to recognize that some processes, like the FOSS4G vote, don't fit into the model of proposing a motion and passing or rejecting it.

Cheers,
    Peter.    

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear All,

I agree that we go ahead with evaluation and selection
of FOSS4G-2018 with the present committee including
Jeroen and others who may wish to contribute to
the discussions on the proposals and the selection
process.

Matters related to the governance of CC can be taken
up separately after seeking clarifications from the
board before we change things.

Best

Venka

P.S. Despite the fatigue brought about due to the large
volume of mail exchanges on CC list recently,
I am glad that our recent discussions have brought about
a better understanding of each others opinions.


On 10/1/2016 7:36 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:
Dear All Thanks a lot for your detailed and enlightening comments. I
have understood now that the aim of this Committee is just to select
the next FOSS4G. For the governance issues that I wrongly believed
being part of our discussion, I will refer to the Board presenting
to the next Board meeting a motion about the governance of the
Committees. Enjoy your week end!! Maria





Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale -------- Da: Jeroen Ticheler
<[hidden email]> Data: 01/10/2016 00:08 (GMT+01:00) A:
Peter Batty <[hidden email]> Cc: "<[hidden email]>"
<[hidden email]>, Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Voting & commitment

+1 for Peter.

The procedural discussions, membership clean up rounds (more often
than voting rounds) and statements about the minimum qualifications
of the membership made me step down. (Indeed I abused the proposed
new guidelines as an escape route ;-) ). While I've always taken the
selection work (reading the proposals) very seriously, have organized
recurring events and have been involved in osgeo right from the
start, these processes have made me feel unwelcome and uncomfortable.
I am convinced that responsibility and commitment is worth at least
as much as having run a FOSS4G conference. The recurring discussions
on who is eligible to be member and is allowed to vote have been
demotivating to me. I wouldn't be surprised if others have similar
feelings but I can only speak for myself.

To me OSGeo is a do-ocracy, I see bureaucracy step in more often and
think it can be destructive for a volunteer organization that has
transparency, openness and trust in each other as core values. I've
previously opposed the formation of a Code of conduct Committee. Not
because I think people should be offended in any way, or shouldn't be
protected if an offense occurs. But because I think it is a step away
from being truly open, trusting and respectful towards each other
within OSGeo. Extra bureaucracy and guidelines aren't very helpful
for that IMO, it often just creates barriers to get things done.

Cheers and keep up the good work! Jeroen

Op 30 sep. 2016 om 22:05 heeft Peter Batty
<[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> het volgende geschreven:


Yes, I was going to make a similar point. The primary task that this
committee carries out is the annual selection of the next FOSS4G
team, using a voting process that is unaffected by the current
discussion. We also occasionally (usually once a year) vote to add a
new member, this process is (I think) changing to use a different
voting process, also unaffected by the current discussion (well I
guess it was part of this originally but we have moved on).

We have had over 150 emails now I think on this topic, to address
something that almost never happens (that this committee votes on
matters other than the previous two items I mentioned). We have spent
way more time discussing this than I have ever seen the committee
spend discussing a FOSS4G selection. We all have a finite amount of
time we can devote to OSGeo work and I would prefer to see this group
focus its energy on conference related matters.

So I'm sorry but I certainly have "voter fatigue" on this issue as
Steven said. This is not intended to be a criticism of anyone and I
appreciate the passion and energy of those of you who want to improve
our voting process. I voted in favor of the first motion but missed
the second vote among the volume of mail that came through on this
topic.

I think that calls for people to stand down who didn't vote on this
most recent motion are misguided. I serve on this committee as I want
to help contribute to us continuing to have great FOSS4G conferences,
and I think I have relevant experience to help with that. But I'm
afraid I have a rapidly diminishing enthusiasm for further discussion
on modifying a voting system that is almost never used by this
committee.

So anyway, I really don't mean this to sound like a negative email,
but I would like to encourage those of you who have a strong opinion
on voting processes to find a way to bring this matter to a
conclusion soon. Then the rest of us whose focus and interest is on
conference related matters will be happy to use the new process on
the very rare occasions that we need it :).

Cheers, Peter.

P.S. for what it's worth, my main thought on organization is that I
prefer a smaller, more engaged conference committee. I also have a
slight leaning to a simple majority vote as I think it helps to make
decisions more quickly, and we are not always good at that :).

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, David William Bitner
<[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: I also
think in the case of this committee, there is one vote a year that
the folks here universally care about: the FOSS4G selection.

Other than that, people clearly have far less energy to spend paying
attention to things like governance issues. Low/no quorum can handle
this even with a large overall pool of committee members as folks who
only care about that one vote can "ride it out" through the year, but
pay close attention come rfp/selection time.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eli Adam
<[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: On
Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan
<[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

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.

25% quorum threshold and "benevolent dictatorship" have nearly
nothing in common.

In benevolent dictatorship 1 person can overrule a 90% majority.
This is entirely anti-democratic.

In low (or no quorum), people can participate as it suits and
interests them.  If people are fine with the already voted stance,
then they don't need to throw in their +1.  If people are satisfied
with the motion going either way, they certainly don't need to add
their +0.  During contentious or interesting topics that also fit
the timing of activities in people's personal lives, then there is
often high participation.  While participation may range from
1%-100%, the result is consensus or at least majority.  Majority to
consensus is entirely democratic.  People choosing to not vote is not
a loss of democracy.  The potential is there if people are so
inclined.

Best regards, Eli _______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>


http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev



-- ************************************ David William Bitner
dbSpatial LLC <a href="tel:612-424-9932" value="+16124249932" target="_blank">612-424-9932<tel:<a href="tel:612-424-9932" value="+16124249932" target="_blank">612-424-9932>

_______________________________________________ Conference_dev
mailing list
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>


http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________ Conference_dev
mailing list
[hidden email]<mailto:[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