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

[Eli Adam]

I thought that I had 15 more minutes to comment,
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

This amendment has only gotten participation of 7/16 committee members
which demonstrates exactly why to not pass it.

No one (Maria included) has responded to my real world OSGeo project
examples (including the conference committee selecting the FOSS4G bid)
of less than 50% participation.
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-September/003998.html.
Also, no one has commented on the apparent unpopularity of calling to
remove committee members but the mathematical need for that to keep
the committee functional with a 50% quorum requirement.

3 of the 7 who participated, expressed favor for a 25% or lower quorum.

Maria, to keep the committee functional, will you bring a proposal to
remove the 9/16 committee members who didn't vote?

If I were to vote on this, I would vote -1.  Right now it is obvious
to me that the committee will become defunct with a 50% quorum
requirement.  I have provided numerous counterexamples from our OSGeo
Projects and this committee itself.  No one has addressed those
examples or proposed solutions to how to keep the committee
functional.

Best regards, Eli

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have moved the summary of these discussions and voting from the main
> Conference Committee page on the wiki to a separate page at
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions Feel
> free to correct any omissions or misunderstandings
>
> When the committee has voted on all of the amendments and has adopted
> policies on membership and voting, those policies should be added to the
> main CC page on the wiki
>
> Cheers
> ______
> Steven
>
>
> On 28 Sep 2016, at 06:10, 신상희 <shshin at gaia3d.com> wrote:
>
> +1 for Maria's proposal to have a 50% quorum.
>
> Sanghee
>
>
> 2016. 9. 27. 오후 6:14에 "Darrell Fuhriman" <darrell at garnix.org>님이 작성:
>>
>> +1 for me, and my sentiments are similar to David’s.
>>
>> Darrell
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2016, at 08:10, David William Bitner <bitner at dbspatial.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I am +1 on Maria's point 1 to have a 50% quorum. Personally, I'd be happy
>> going down to 25% especially if we keep a larger committee than just 11, but
>> 50% is reasonable and better than 100% or having the quorum be undefined.
>>
>> While the vote on hosting the annual conference is one of the biggest
>> decisions that OSGeo makes every year, it is important to note that this
>> committee's vote is simply a recommendation to the Board. We can all hope
>> that the Board takes this recommendation very seriously, but I would rather
>> only have people who actually are paying attention and reading all the bids
>> really participate. What we deliver to the Board is not simply a vote, but
>> we also provide a conversation, recorded on this list, that expresses any
>> thoughts and concerns we all have based on our experiences running FOSS4G's
>> and other events.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev