[OSGeo-Conf] Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process
Vasile Craciunescu
vasile at geo-spatial.org
Tue Jan 31 12:15:05 PST 2017
+1 Vasile
Thank you, Cameron!
Best,
Vasile
On 1/29/17 10:00 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to
> approved revised text for conference committee text:
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>
>
> Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter
>
>
> Decisions
>
> 1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes
> will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count
> toward decisions.
> 2. Voting will use convention of:
> * +1 : For
> * +0: Mildly for
> * 0: Indifferent
> * -0: Mildly against
> * -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a
> reason and alternative proposal.
> 3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a
> clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business
> days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
> 4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum
> of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter
> participation.
> 5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to
> address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where
> necessary.
> 6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
> 7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or
> use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.
>
>
> FOSS4G Selection
>
> 1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the
> list for open comment by all.
> 2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of
> conference committee members.
> 3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference
> committee’s recommendation.
> 4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is
> expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is
> part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is
> employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude
> themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a
> disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the
> committee chair has the authority to make a decision.
>
>
> Membership
>
> 1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced
> people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs
> (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most
> recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member
> but still requires a motion and vote.
> 2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from
> the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
> 3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally
> attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G
> or related conferences.
> 4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership
> list shall be re-visited.
> 1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on
> the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of
> attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
> 2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto
> the conference committee.
> 3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G
> chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair
> positions shall be up for re-election.
> 4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by
> the existing conference committee and board members who are not
> already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote
> Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for
> up to the number of positions available.
> 5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by
> email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will
> be selected by the committee chair.
>
>
> Votes for the motion
>
> 1. Steven Feldman <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Stevenfeldman>
> 2. Eli Adam <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:EliL>
> 3. Peter Batty <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Pmbatty>
> 4. David Bitner <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Bitner>
> 5. Maria Brovelli <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Maria>
> 6. Jachym Cepicky <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Jachym>
> 7. Vasile Craciunescu <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Vasile>
> 8. David Fawcett positive words
> 9. Gavin Fleming <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:GFleming>
> 10. Darrell Fuhriman
> 11. Helena Mitasova <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Helena>
> 12. Claude Philipona
> 13. Venkatesh Raghavan <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Venkat>
> 14. Paul Ramsey <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Pwramsey3>
> 15. Cameron Shorter <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Camerons>
> 16. Sanghee Shin <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Sanghee>
> 17. Till Adams <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Till_Adams>
> 18. Jeroen Ticheler
>
>
>
>
> On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> Conference committee,
>>
>> Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference
>> committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and
>> Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].
>>
>> Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you
>> think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing
>> to be changed.
>>
>> Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably
>> all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion
>> as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up
>> to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).
>>
>> The changes include:
>>
>> * There is no set number of people on the committee, just a
>> requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50%
>> of the committee.
>>
>> * Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to
>> try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all)
>> committee members to vote.
>>
>> * A number of other minor tweaks to the text.
>>
>> Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the
>> conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10
>> more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16
>> members [2] listed.
>>
>> Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the
>> committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>>
>>
>> [2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
>
> On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
>> +1, I like the compromises!
>
> On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go
>> into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document
>> myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents
>> (source in subversion)
>>
>>
>> On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
>>> I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1
>>> of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation
>>> did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one
>>> proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals
>>> _not_ be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing
>>> cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them
>>> publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017
>>> competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first
>>> proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late
>>> submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before
>>> submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017,
>>> but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this
>>> to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1
>>> would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the
>>> proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before
>>> the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day
>>> following the deadline."
>>>
>>> Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
>>>
>>> MT
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Vasile Crăciunescu
geo-spatial.org: An elegant place for sharing geoKnowledge & geoData
http://www.geo-spatial.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/geo-spatial
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list