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

Tue Sep 27 01:17:56 PDT 2016

Maria

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

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

> On 27 Sep 2016, at 08:33, Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it> wrote:
> 
> I again propose to vote on 1) 
> We have been discussing for many days and sooner or later we have to take a decision, which will not be the same for all of us.
> 
> Please, shall we vote on 
> 
> 1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board . Voting
> procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.
> 
>                                  ?
> 
> Best.
> Maria 
> 
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
> 
> 
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: till.adams at fossgis.de 
> Data: 27/09/2016 08:59 (GMT+01:00) 
> A: conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org 
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process 
> 
> Hi Eli, @all,
> 
> indeed this is a different question and before I read your example of 4 
> people having read the full proposals instead of 8, that just skimmed 
> through it, I'd have said, that we for sure need a 50% quorum.
> 
> But, thinking about this for as while, I still think that 50% quorum is 
> needed: I do not want to say, that the CC is the "most important" 
> committee, but it cares for our most important flagship:
> Our global conference. So if I want to be member of that committee, 
> everybody in and around OSGeo can expect, that I will do my job.
> My opinion: If I will not do my job, you can remove me from the 
> committee, because I am useless and I just occupy a position, other 
> motivated people want to have but presumably can't.
> 
> I think the idea of Steven, to reduce the voting numbers to 11 helps us 
> to catch up with that problem. If we have 11 interested, motivated and 
> engaged people, with 1-2 coming in and 1-2 leaving every year, we should 
> be able to have at least more than 4 people reading the proposals and 
> more than 5 people, who vote.
> 
> Regards, Till
> 
> 
> Am 2016-09-27 00:03, schrieb Eli Adam:
> > Hi Maria and all,
> >
> > Maybe it was missed in the length of the other thread.  I had some
> > specific question and cited specific examples.  What are your 
> > thoughts
> > on these items?
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
> > <maria.brovelli at polimi.it> wrote:
> >> Here the amended motion.
> >>
> >> In my opinion it is the very time of voting  to be able to go ahead.
> >>
> >> It is better to vote before for  1) in such a way that we have a 
> >> procedure
> >> and then vote for 2-5.
> >>
> >> Steven, I leave you to decide the time.
> >>
> >> Best.
> >> Maria
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board 
> >> Voting
> >> procedure  made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is 
> >> adopted.
> >>
> >
> > I'd like to propose quorum of greater than or equal to 25%.  Is that
> > agreeable to you?
> >
> > I think that we need to be based on reality, not ideals.  Here are
> > some OSGeo projects with votes less than 50% including the conference
> > committee making the most important decision it makes every year.  To
> > me these represent continued success, not failure.
> >
> > https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-132 <https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-132>
> > http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-89.html <http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-89.html>
> > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/44 <https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/44>
> > https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc63_sparse_datasets_improvements <https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc63_sparse_datasets_improvements>
> >
> > These projects have many more votes with greater than 50%
> > participation; maybe those were more interesting topics or better
> > timed with personal events in people's lives.
> >
> >>
> >> 
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> 2) The number of members of the Conference Committee is equal to 17.
> >
> > Previously Paul made a call for everyone who didn't vote to resign,
> > 
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2012-April/001723.html <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2012-April/001723.html>
> > and I think that was generally poorly received.  Subsequently I think
> > Cameron did something like that with the intent of spurring people
> > into action (which worked).
> >
> > 50% is fine with me except to keep the committee functional, we need
> > to routinely raise motions to remove committee members who haven't
> > voted.  I think a better method is a lower quorum.  Both work but one
> > seems unfriendly.
> >
> > What do other committee members think?  What is a reasonable and
> > obtainable quorum percentage?  Is removing members for lack of
> > participation a good idea?
> >
> > I'd rather the votes of 4 people who read three entire 50+ page
> > proposals than the votes of 8 people who skimmed the proposals or of
> > those same 4 people after removing the non-voting other 4 yielding
> > 100% voting.
> >
> > I'm glad that we're clarifying our operating procedures on the 
> > committee.
> >
> > Best regards, Eli
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 3) The retirement policy adopted by the Conference Committee is the 
> >> same as
> >> that of the Board.
> >>
> >> Conference Committee  membership is for a 2 year term with half of 
> >> the
> >> Conference Committee seats coming up for election each year.
> >>
> >> 4) The present Committee continues for an year and we hold election 
> >> in 2017
> >> with the 9 seats  (9 of the longest serving members vacating their 
> >> seats in
> >> Conference Committee) coming up for election.
> >>
> >> 5) Voting for Conference Committee members is restricted to the 
> >> remaining
> >> Conference Committee members and Board members who are not members 
> >> of the
> >> Conference Committee
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------
> >> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
> >> Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
> >> Politecnico di Milano
> >>
> >> ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; 
> >> OSGeo;
> >> ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; 
> >> SIFET
> >>
> >> Sol Katz Award 2015
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
> >>
> >> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
> >>
> >> e-mail1: maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> >>
> >> e-mail2: prorettrice at como.polimi.it
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Conference_dev mailing list
> >> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>_______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160927/f0d042d3/attachment-0001.html>