<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>Cameron, I understand your position. Anyway I think that more people participating to a discussion and taking decision is better than few. And, again, which is the problem in voting? Once you read a motion, if it is a simple one, it is easy to answer with
0 or +1 (it requires just a couple of seconds). If there are doubts, better to discuss it in such a way to find a larger consensus. Sorry, but I really don't see the problem.</p>
<p>Cheers.</p>
<p>Maria</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="Signature">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<div name="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:; margin:0">
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><span style="background-color:rgb(204,153,255)"><font color="000000"><b><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">----------------------------------------------------<br>
</span></b></font></span></font>Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli<br>
<div><font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor<br>
Politecnico di Milano</font></div>
<font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><span style="background-color:rgb(204,153,255)"><font color="000000"><b><span style="background-color:rgb(0,255,255)"></span></b></font></span></font><font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>ISPRS WG IV/4"<span>Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)</span>";</span><span>
</span><span>OSGeo; </span><span>ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory <font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Board</font>; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge;
</span><span>SIFET </span></p>
</span></font></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><span><b><font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Sol<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"> Katz<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">
<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Award<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"> 2015</font></font></font></font></font></b></span></font></font><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITAL<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Y</font>)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob.</span><span> +39-328-0023867 -
</span><span>fax. <font color="000000">+39-031-3327321</font></span></p>
<font color="000000"></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>e-mail1: <a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it" tabindex="0" id="LPNoLP"></a><font color="333333"><font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">maria.brovelli@polimi.it</font></font></span></p>
<font color="000000"></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span><a tabindex="0" id="LPNoLP">e-mail2</a>:</span><span>
<font color="333333"><font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">prorettrice@como.polimi.it</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><br>
<br>
</p>
<font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"> </font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>Da:</b> Conference_dev <conference_dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org> per conto di Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@gmail.com><br>
<b>Inviato:</b> lunedì 19 settembre 2016 22.21<br>
<b>A:</b> board@lists.osgeo.org; conference<br>
<b>Oggetto:</b> Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText"> It is worth noting that the vast majority of decisions made within a
<br>
project typically are non-contentious and need not be slowed down by <br>
waiting for a majority vote.<br>
<br>
OSGeo-Live has developed similar guidelines to MapServer PSC to <br>
efficiently achieve rough consensus:<br>
<br>
"""<br>
<br>
For most decisions, a motion is raised within one of the OSGeo-Live open <br>
forums (IRC, email list, etc) and those present vote and decide. Should <br>
there be contention in deciding, and after discussion at least one <br>
member is still strongly against the motion, by continuing to vote -1, <br>
the motion should be referred to the PSC.<br>
<br>
For motions presented to the PSC, a motion is considered passed when <br>
there are more PSC +1 votes than -1 votes, and either all PSC members <br>
have voted, or 4 days have passed. In the case of a tie, the PSC chair <br>
shall have 1.5 votes.<br>
<br>
"""<br>
<br>
<a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Management">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Management</a><br>
<br>
<br>
On 20/09/2016 3:41 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:<br>
> BTW, as a complement of information, some committees such as the <br>
> MapServer PSC [1] and others who used the same template have addressed <br>
> the question of being unable to reach consensus due to vetos as follows:<br>
><br>
> """<br>
> If a proposal is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all <br>
> parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote in which a <br>
> majority of all eligible voters indicating +1 is sufficient to pass <br>
> it. Note that this is a majority of all committee members, not just <br>
> those who actively vote.<br>
> """<br>
><br>
> Maybe our generic OSGeo committee guidelines [2] could be revised to <br>
> include such an override vote concept?<br>
><br>
> Daniel<br>
><br>
><br>
> [1] <br>
> <a href="http://mapserver.org/fr/development/rfc/ms-rfc-23.html#detailed-process">
http://mapserver.org/fr/development/rfc/ms-rfc-23.html#detailed-process</a><br>
> [2] <a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 2016-09-19 1:29 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:<br>
>> Thanks Arnulf, I did not realise that a -1 could be a veto.<br>
>><br>
>> Could Venka and Maria please confirm whether their -1 was intended to <br>
>> be a veto? If either of you intended your -1 to be a veto could you <br>
>> propose an alternative that would be acceptable to you and we will <br>
>> re-vote on an amended motion.<br>
>><br>
>> I also note that the guidelines say "As long as the motions collect <br>
>> at least two +1's, and no -1 vetos over a period of two business <br>
>> days, they will be considered passed, subject to the judgement of the <br>
>> chair…” Given the discussion about what would constitute an <br>
>> acceptable quorum, that may need to be changed across the whole <br>
>> organisation as well.<br>
>><br>
>> If we are going to continue to allow a veto vote then I suggest that <br>
>> it should be declared as a veto rather than a -1 so that there is <br>
>> clarity. Having a veto vote does suggest that a smaller committee <br>
>> size would help to reach decisions.<br>
>><br>
>> Does the veto vote apply to a selection type vote e.g for a <br>
>> committee/board member or the choice of a FOSS4G?<br>
>><br>
>> I would be in favour of a switch to a majority voting system as the <br>
>> aspiration to achieve consensus will become more difficult as we grow <br>
>> and will certainly slow us down (I accept that may be a ‘good’ thing <br>
>> when taking momentous decisions).<br>
>><br>
>> You learn something every day :)<br>
>><br>
>> ______<br>
>> Steven<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 17:58, Seven (aka Arnulf) <seven@arnulf.us> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Steven,<br>
>>> so far we actually always counted a -1 as a veto.<br>
>>> <a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> But this strong vote probably has to be communicated to the voting<br>
>>> members every now and then because new people come in who don't know <br>
>>> the<br>
>>> power of this vote and may use it to show their disagreement without<br>
>>> knowing that they will actually completely block the process. It is <br>
>>> also<br>
>>> important to note that a -1 veto will only be valid if the voter<br>
>>> explains the rationale of his or her vote and also proposes a viable<br>
>>> alternative solution.<br>
>>><br>
>>> That said, maybe OSGeo as an organization is also moving out of the<br>
>>> phase where this type of consensus and compromise-finding is a<br>
>>> realistically achievable goal. In that case we may want to change the<br>
>>> general voting system to a majority vote as is typical for democratic<br>
>>> systems. This is something for the board or maybe even the charter<br>
>>> members to decide.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Personally I would prefer to stick with the -1 is-a-veto voting system<br>
>>> because it is the only way to make sure that nobody feels left out. But<br>
>>> as said, maybe we have grown too big to be able to afford this <br>
>>> leniency.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Have fun,<br>
>>> Arnulf<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 19.09.2016 17:01, Steven Feldman wrote:<br>
>>>> I was not aware that the CC had a consensus voting system with -1 <br>
>>>> being<br>
>>>> a veto. I can’t recall any mention of a veto vote in any past CC<br>
>>>> decisions, it would make it very unlikely (if not impossible) to reach<br>
>>>> decisions in a timely manner.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I thought we already had simple majority voting within the CC (what<br>
>>>> David described as a Parliamentary system) with +1 being in favour and<br>
>>>> -1 being against and +0 being an abstention and a majority decision.<br>
>>>> That was my intention for the motion.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> The discussion about a quorum was to determine the minimum number <br>
>>>> of CC<br>
>>>> members required to vote for a vote to be valid and of those voters a<br>
>>>> majority would decide the outcome.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> For the record, the modus operandi of the CC is to discuss topics <br>
>>>> in an<br>
>>>> open forum on the mailing list and after discussing to move to a vote.<br>
>>>> We have not in the past held regular meetings and I was not <br>
>>>> proposing to<br>
>>>> change that practice. The one exception was the CC meeting on IRC to<br>
>>>> discuss the proposals for the 2017 FOSS4G selection before we moved <br>
>>>> to a<br>
>>>> vote, I have incorporated such a meeting in the RfP for 2018.<br>
>>>> ______<br>
>>>> Steven<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 15:32, David William Bitner <bitner@dbspatial.com<br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:bitner@dbspatial.com">mailto:bitner@dbspatial.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> In general for a consensus +1/-1 system, -1 is considered a veto. <br>
>>>>> This<br>
>>>>> is why I chose to vote +0 to indicate that I do not fully approve but<br>
>>>>> did not want to stop the vote. By the consensus system, the two -1<br>
>>>>> votes should act as vetos. This committee has typically used +1/-1 <br>
>>>>> but<br>
>>>>> on a much more straight vote system, perhaps in the future to avoid<br>
>>>>> confusion we should not use the +1/-1 nomenclature if this is not our<br>
>>>>> intended outcome, but rather a more parliamentary yes/no so as to<br>
>>>>> avoid confusion between the intention of both systems.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> If we run our votes in a consensus manner, I would support a quorum<br>
>>>>> rule for a vote as having an affirmative +0/+1 vote from greater than<br>
>>>>> 50% of members with no dissenting votes. Under a parliamentary <br>
>>>>> system,<br>
>>>>> it would make more sense to have a quorum of 50% and a motion passing<br>
>>>>> with a majority of those /who voted/ supporting the vote.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan<br>
>>>>> <venka.osgeo@gmail.com <<a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com">mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I think quorum denotes the minimum members that<br>
>>>>> must be present in a meeting for the proceedings<br>
>>>>> to be valid. I my opinion, this should be more<br>
>>>>> that 50% of the total number in the committee.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The number of votes required for a motion to<br>
>>>>> pass (this is different from quorum) would<br>
>>>>> also be more than 50% of the total members<br>
>>>>> in the committee.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Does the members of CC have the power of veto?<br>
>>>>> In my understanding -1 indicates a veto.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Best<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Venka<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 9/19/2016 6:07 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The voting results are:<br>
>>>>> +1 = 12<br>
>>>>> +0 = 1<br>
>>>>> -1 = 2<br>
>>>>> Not voted = 3<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The motion is carried.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I know that the 2 -1 voters wanted to raise the quorum for a<br>
>>>>> vote, I support that. Would someone like to start a new thread<br>
>>>>> and propose a higher quorum for a vote.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I will start a new thread to discuss how we reduce our<br>
>>>>> membership numbers to the level that we have just approved.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Cheers<br>
>>>>> ______<br>
>>>>> Steven<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 9 Sep 2016, at 15:41, Steven Feldman<br>
>>>>> <shfeldman@gmail.com <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> This mail is aimed at the current members of the<br>
>>>>> Conference Committee (we do not have a private list).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Only committee members can vote on these proposals, others<br>
>>>>> on this list are welcome to comment and committee members<br>
>>>>> will hopefully take note of those opinions when voting on<br>
>>>>> the matters proposed.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The current membership of the conference committee is<br>
>>>>> listed at<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members">
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members</a>><br>
>>>>> <<a href=""></a>https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members<br>
>>>>> <<a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members</a>>>.<br>
>>>>> We have 19 members after Dave McIlhagga resigned and after<br>
>>>>> we co-opted Till Adams as the chair of FOSS4G2016. There<br>
>>>>> is currently no policy or rule for eligibility nor for<br>
>>>>> requiring a member to retire after a period of time.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I have suggested in the past that we needed to have an<br>
>>>>> open and fair process for selecting members and limiting<br>
>>>>> the maximum number of committee members. At the face to<br>
>>>>> face it was agreed that I should propose a policy.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I propose the following:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Goals<br>
>>>>> =====<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The conference committee have the responsibility to run<br>
>>>>> the selection process and voting for the global FOSS4G, to<br>
>>>>> vote on other proposals submitted to the committee and to<br>
>>>>> advise the board on other matters relating to FOSS4G <br>
>>>>> events.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Role of the Committee and the broader community on the<br>
>>>>> Conference_Dev list<br>
>>>>> ============================================================<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 1) Everyday topics will be decided upon by an open vote of<br>
>>>>> all list participants in a clearly designated separate<br>
>>>>> mail thread (+1/-1) over a minimum of two business days<br>
>>>>> with a minimum participation of 3 votes. Ideally we aim<br>
>>>>> for consensus falling back on simple majority vote where<br>
>>>>> necessary. The result will be clearly declared afterwards<br>
>>>>> (or whatever is decided).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 2) Election of conference committee is by secret vote and<br>
>>>>> restricted to the remaining conference committee members<br>
>>>>> and board members who are not members of the conference<br>
>>>>> committee.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 3) FOSS4G Selection - All Letters of Intent and subsequent<br>
>>>>> proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by<br>
>>>>> all participants. The selection of the winning proposal is<br>
>>>>> by secret vote of conference committee members only. Any<br>
>>>>> committee member who has a potential conflict of interest<br>
>>>>> is expected to withdraw from vote. In the event of a<br>
>>>>> disagreement the committee chair will decide.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Votes in 2 and 3 are to an online voting service or by<br>
>>>>> email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Conference Committee membership policy and process<br>
>>>>> ==========================================<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 1) The conference committee aims to retain up to 11 active<br>
>>>>> members, preferably an odd number<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 2) The committee aims for half of these members to be<br>
>>>>> chairs (or vice chairs) of the most recent FOSS4G global<br>
>>>>> events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will<br>
>>>>> automatically be invited to become a member<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 3) The remaining membership is open, ideally attracting<br>
>>>>> people from earlier past chairs or active LOC members from<br>
>>>>> past Global, Regional FOSS4G or related conferences<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 4) Each year (after FOSS4G) the 3 committee members should<br>
>>>>> stand down:<br>
>>>>> a) The longest standing past FOSS4G chair<br>
>>>>> b) The longest standing 2 committee members remaining<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 5) Each year, prior to putting out the Global FOSS4G RfP,<br>
>>>>> the old committee should vote for their replacement<br>
>>>>> committee, using the above criteria as voting guidelines.<br>
>>>>> OSGeo Board members who are not on the conference<br>
>>>>> committee will also be invited to vote.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 6) Past committee members including those who have stood<br>
>>>>> down due to length of service may stand for re-election<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 7) Votes will be secret either using an online voting<br>
>>>>> system or by email to a designated teller who is not a<br>
>>>>> voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee <br>
>>>>> chair.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I would ask committee members (and list participants) to<br>
>>>>> comment on this proposal by 18.00 GMT Wednesday 14th<br>
>>>>> September. I will then call for a vote amongst committee<br>
>>>>> members only, the vote will close at 18.00 GMT on Sunday<br>
>>>>> 18th September.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Once the membership policy has been agreed we will then<br>
>>>>> need to apply the policy to the existing membership. I<br>
>>>>> suggest that we ask all current members to confirm whether<br>
>>>>> they wish to remain committee members and then hold an<br>
>>>>> election (if needed). To this end it would be helpful if<br>
>>>>> each committee member could update their record on the<br>
>>>>> wiki page to show when they joined the conference<br>
>>>>> committee (see my example).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The intention is that a 2016-7 committee of 11 will have<br>
>>>>> been selected before we vote on the LoI’s for 2018, which<br>
>>>>> is likely to be before the end of October.<br>
>>>>> ______<br>
>>>>> Steven<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>>>> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>>>> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org <br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> -- <br>
>>>>> ************************************<br>
>>>>> David William Bitner<br>
>>>>> dbSpatial LLC<br>
>>>>> 612-424-9932<br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>>>> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org <br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>>> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Board mailing list<br>
>> Board@lists.osgeo.org<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Cameron Shorter<br>
M +61 419 142 254<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>