<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear All,<br>
<br>
I think the proposal for CC guidelines was voted and passed <br>
in 9 Feb., 2017 and both Maria and myself vote +1 for<br>
it.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Venka<br>
<br>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter</a><br>
<br>
On 9/18/2017 3:08 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOhbgA=V0hJ8KQQ6YkB2G_y4bu5yVWK+RzMRe2dy1kQdkH+SOA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">The board discussed the topic last year after the events you describe.
- <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2016-11-03">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2016-11-03</a>
- <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2016-11-25">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2016-11-25</a>
The action was taken to ask committees to write down how they operate as a
formal document for the website (giving the board an opportunity to review
as required).
As an example the incubation committee has responded here
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.osgeo.org/incubator">http://www.osgeo.org/incubator</a> (see "Committee Operation").
Not all committees have responded, and were not asked for an update during
the AGM.
You know my own take on this, it is worth negotiation with committee
members to see what will work. The incubation committee has gradually
relaxed from IRC meeting to the email procedures you see now.
I personally like the GeoServer requirement that -1 votes carry the
responsibility of providing an alternative. It is worth noting that even
when the veto requests that things remain the same is awkward when the
request is for things to stay the same, since it does not carry the same
burden of responsibility to negotiate
--
Jody Garnett
On 17 September 2017 at 09:07, Steven Feldman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><shfeldman@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Almost a year ago the conference list had an extensive discussion on
proposals to introduce new rules on membership of the conference committee
and updating the voting procedure and quorum to reflect the size of the
committee.
A proposal got almost unanimous support (10 or 12 votes in favour) but was
vetoed by 2 committee members (Venka and Maria). Subsequent discussions on
counter proposals from Venka and Maria failed to gain support and the whole
topic lapsed.
I recall that Venka and Maria undertook to take the matter to the board
for further discussion with the intention of proposing new guidelines on
membership and voting for ALL committees. Has the board discussed this
topic?
Steven
07958 924 101
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>