<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><div style="direction: inherit;">Maria (and Venka)</div><div style="direction: inherit;"><br></div><div style="direction: inherit;">My problem is that there are now 77 mails in this thread and I am not sure whether you and Venka voted against our vetoed. If you did veto, how do the substantial majority of the committee who voted in favour find a way to resolve?</div><div style="direction: inherit;"><br></div><div style="direction: inherit;">To me this doesn't seem a very effective way of reaching a decision on a relatively minor procedural change which apparently is not very different to the procedures in some other committees.</div><br>Steven<div>07958 924 101</div></div><div><br>On 19 Sep 2016, at 21:57, Cameron Shorter <<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
  
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  
  
    <p>Hi Maria,</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>What I've noticed as part of many OSGeo Committees is that after
      a while, some of the members become less active and less
      responsive, and that is ok.<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>A typical person's engagement is a little like a bell curve. They
      start off being respectful and quite during a learning phase, then
      get engaged and productive, often solving a particular "itch",
      then involvement tapers off as the person's interest are
      reprioritised. When that person becomes less active, they
      typically have excellent advise based on experience, worth
      listening too. However, because the project is not the person's
      primary focus they are not monitoring or voting on day-to-day
      project activities.<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>I'm suggesting our committee guidelines should allow for this
      engagement pattern, allowing old hands to provide advise when they
      have time and when practical.<br>
    </p>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/09/2016 6:36 AM, Maria Antonia
      Brovelli wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:DB4PR06MB07364A2E9E10E769E64446C28AF40@DB4PR06MB0736.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com" type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=windows-1252">
      
      <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 face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3"><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 face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3">Vice
                  Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor<br>
                  Politecnico di Milano</font></div>
              <font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3"><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 face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3"><br>
              </font><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="'Trebuchet
                  MS', sans-serif" size="3"><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 face="'Trebuchet MS',
                    sans-serif" size="3"><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>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>e-mail1: <font color="333333"><font face="'Trebuchet MS',
                      sans-serif"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it">maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a></font></font></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span><a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="0" id="LPNoLP">e-mail2</a>:</span><span>
                  <font color="333333"><font face="'Trebuchet MS',
                      sans-serif"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:prorettrice@como.polimi.it">prorettrice@como.polimi.it</a></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>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3"> </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 style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>Da:</b> Conference_dev
                <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:conference_dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org"><conference_dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org></a> per conto
                di Cameron Shorter <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com"><cameron.shorter@gmail.com></a><br>
                <b>Inviato:</b> lunedì 19 settembre 2016 22.21<br>
                <b>A:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:board@lists.osgeo.org">board@lists.osgeo.org</a>; 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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) <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:seven@arnulf.us"><seven@arnulf.us></a> wrote:<br>
                >>><br>
                >>> Steven,<br>
                >>> so far we actually always counted a -1 as a
                veto.<br>
                >>> <a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitner@dbspatial.com">bitner@dbspatial.com</a><br>
                >>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
                >>>>> <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com">venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a> <<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
                >>>>>            <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>
                <<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members">
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members</a><br>
                >>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members</a>><br>
                >>>>> <<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members</a><br>
                >>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
                >>>>>       
                <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
                >>>>>        <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
                >>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
                >>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
                >>>>>    <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a> <br>
                >>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
                >>>>>    <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
                >>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
                >>>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a> <br>
                >>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
                >>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
                >>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
                >>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
                >>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
                >>> <a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
                >> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
                >> <a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
                <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
                <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></div>
            </span></font></div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254</pre>
  

</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Conference_dev mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>