<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>Dear Eli</p>
<p>last year this Committee (we are speaking about the rules of this Committee) voted for less than 10 motions, which is a quite small number (less than one a month).</p>
<p>A person who decides to be involved in a Committee accepts at least a minimum commitment (if not, what is the reason of staying in a Committee?). In my opinion voting less than one a month (in average) is not a so big effort. </p>
<p>And definitely it means that more people (the people of made them available for the Committee!!)</p>
<p>are part of the decisions.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I propose to follow the Board Guideline, adding a 50 % quorum.</p>
<p>Best.</p>
<p>Maria</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 size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><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 size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor<br>
Politecnico di Milano</font></div>
<font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><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 size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><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 size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><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>
<font color="000000"></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>e-mail1: <a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it" tabindex="0" id="LPNoLP"></a><font color="333333"><font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">maria.brovelli@polimi.it</font></font></span></p>
<font color="000000"></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span><a tabindex="0" id="LPNoLP">e-mail2</a>:</span><span>
<font color="333333"><font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">prorettrice@como.polimi.it</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>
<font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"> </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 face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>Da:</b> Eli Adam <eadam@co.lincoln.or.us><br>
<b>Inviato:</b> venerdì 23 settembre 2016 19.10<br>
<b>A:</b> Cameron Shorter<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Darrell Fuhriman; Maria Antonia Brovelli; <conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org><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">I think that the Board guidelines are generally very good and we<br>
should adopt something very similar to that (I think that the existing<br>
committee guidelines are already similar.).<br>
<br>
The part I don't like is the 100% vote participation. I also don't<br>
like the 50% vote since most committees, PSC, and other bodies I've<br>
participated on or observed don't regularly meet that percentage.<br>
<br>
I like the Board procedures [1] augmented by something like the<br>
general committee guidelines [2] which only requires very low<br>
participation.<br>
<br>
"As long as the motions collect at least two +1's, and no -1 vetos<br>
over a period of two business days, they will be considered passed,<br>
subject to the judgement of the chair (who might choose to defer a<br>
motion to a meeting for instance)."<br>
<br>
People who have run votes for the conference committee have required<br>
incredible effort to get participation.<br>
<br>
Best regards, Eli<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure</a><br>
[2] <a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines</a><br>
<br>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:12 AM, Cameron Shorter<br>
<cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
> Thanks Maria for pointing out the 100% quorum from the board processes. I'm<br>
> supportive of your suggestion for using the board voting procedures with the<br>
> 50% quorum amendment.<br>
><br>
> Warm regards, Cameron<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 22/09/2016 9:05 AM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:<br>
><br>
> Oh yah, I guess I overlooked that bit.<br>
><br>
> I agree that 100% for a quorum is unnecessary and 50% seems reasonable to<br>
> me.<br>
><br>
> d.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 14:38, Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli@polimi.it><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> This requires that ALL members vote, i.e. quorum = 100 %. A minimum 50 %<br>
> quorum is milder and takes into account that for some reason some of the<br>
> members don't have the possibility of voting. I prefer this second option.<br>
> Therefore I'm positive with the proposal adding the 50 % quorum.<br>
> Best.<br>
> Maria<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------<br>
> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli<br>
> Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor<br>
> Politecnico di Milano<br>
><br>
> ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo;<br>
> ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET<br>
> Sol Katz Award 2015<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)<br>
> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321<br>
> e-mail1: maria.brovelli@polimi.it<br>
> e-mail2: prorettrice@como.polimi.it<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
> Da: Conference_dev <conference_dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org> per conto di<br>
> Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@gmail.com><br>
> Inviato: mercoledì 21 settembre 2016 22.50<br>
> A: Darrell Fuhriman; massimiliano cannata<br>
> Cc: <conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org><br>
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating<br>
> Membership Policies and Process<br>
><br>
> Thanks Maxi for the suggestion. I like it.<br>
> I agree that the board voting processes are good. I'd actually prefer to use<br>
> them as written, without addition of a mention of "needing 50% of members to<br>
> vote".<br>
> My reasons:<br>
> 1. It retains consistency between committees.<br>
> 2. It will still work within a weakened committee (with many inactive<br>
> members)<br>
> Maria, Venka, others,<br>
> Do you have any objections to adopting board voting procedures?<br>
><br>
> On 22/09/2016 1:48 AM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:<br>
><br>
> This seems perfectly reasonable to me.<br>
><br>
> d.<br>
><br>
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 05:50, massimiliano cannata<br>
> <massimiliano.cannata@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi Cameron and Steven,<br>
> as a suggestion why don't you take the well tested procedure adopted at<br>
> board level [1]?<br>
> (And herein after reported for shake of semplicity...)<br>
><br>
> Board Voting Procedure<br>
><br>
> Purpose<br>
><br>
> This document explains the voting procedure for motions put forward to the<br>
> OSGeo Board of Directors.<br>
><br>
> Voting Process<br>
><br>
> Board voting occurs during monthly meetings, as well as a followup vote<br>
> through email<br>
> each Board member may vote “+1” to indicate support for the motion.<br>
> each Board member may vote “-1” to veto a motion, but must provide clear<br>
> reasoning and alternate approaches to resolving the problem within the two<br>
> business days.<br>
> A vote of "-0" indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect. A "0"<br>
> indicates no opinion. A "+0" indicate mild support, but has no effect.<br>
> A motion will be passed once all of the Board members place a vote, and no<br>
> vetoes are received (-1).<br>
> If a motion is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all parties, then<br>
> it can be resubmitted for an override vote, in which a majority of all Board<br>
> members indicating +1 is required to pass it.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Maybe you could change "A motion will be passed once all of the Board<br>
> members place a vote" with "A motion will be passed once 50% of the Board<br>
> members place a vote"...<br>
><br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
> Maxi<br>
><br>
><br>
> [1] <a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 2016-09-21 13:58 GMT+02:00 Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@gmail.com>:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Maria,<br>
>> I think we need to ensure that any rules we put in place will be viable<br>
>> under both robust and weakened committees. A simple test is "Would these<br>
>> guidelines work within a flagging committee?" Eg: What if 8 out of 11 of the<br>
>> members have become inactive and are uncontactable? Would these guidelines<br>
>> still work?<br>
>> Note also that committee members are volunteers and we can't "require"<br>
>> them to vote. We can "request" they vote, maybe even go as far as<br>
>> "expecting" them to vote.<br>
>> I'll propose alternative text. As it stands, I think Steven's words are a<br>
>> better starting point to work from. (I'm aware he put a lot of time into it,<br>
>> and it went through a number of iterations of reviews, which is partly why I<br>
>> think it is well worded).<br>
>> Suggested alternative text (which includes the 50% of members voting):<br>
>> Everyday topics will be decided upon by an open vote of all committee<br>
>> members in a clearly designated separate mail thread (+1/-1) over a minimum<br>
>> of two business days. We will aim to ensure at least 50% of members vote.<br>
>> Ideally we aim for consensus falling back on simple majority vote where<br>
>> necessary. The result will be clearly declared afterwards (or whatever is<br>
>> decided).<br>
>><br>
>> On 21/09/2016 5:06 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Below my first motion about voting motions<br>
>><br>
>> *******************<br>
>><br>
>> When a motion is presented, a quorum of 50% has to be reached in order to<br>
>> consider valid the vote. Reached this threshold, the majority rule is<br>
>> adopted.<br>
>> If there is no majority consensus, the members who didn't vote are<br>
>> required to vote ( ar least one of them). In case of parity, the motion is<br>
>> discussed again until a convergence is found.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> If anyone has more comments or suggestions that they wish to make please<br>
>> get them by 18.00 GMT on 22nd September. Voting the motion will be open then<br>
>> and up to 25 September 18 pm.<br>
>><br>
>> *****************<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers<br>
>> Maria<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Sent from my Samsung device<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -------- Original message --------<br>
>> From: Steven Feldman <shfeldman@gmail.com><br>
>> Date: 20/09/2016 20:25 (GMT+01:00)<br>
>> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli@polimi.it><br>
>> Cc: conference <conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org><br>
>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating<br>
>> Membership Policies and Process<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks Maria<br>
>><br>
>> I support a >50% must vote and the majority of the voters to decide. Did<br>
>> you mean to not have a veto in CC voting?<br>
>><br>
>> Can you redraft the motion and post the new motion as a new thread for<br>
>> people to comment on with a cutoff when voting starts<br>
>> ______<br>
>> Steven<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 20 Sep 2016, at 19:12, Maria Antonia Brovelli<br>
>> <maria.brovelli@polimi.it> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> If we are speaking about less than one vote per month, probably it is not<br>
>> so hard for at least the half of the people to vote.<br>
>><br>
>> I propose again formally: quorum at 50% and majority for the acceptance<br>
>> of the motion.<br>
>><br>
>> Many thanks for everything.<br>
>> Maria<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Sent from my Samsung device<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -------- Original message --------<br>
>> From: Steven Feldman <shfeldman@gmail.com><br>
>> Date: 20/09/2016 11:51 (GMT+01:00)<br>
>> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli@polimi.it><br>
>> Cc: conference <conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org><br>
>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating<br>
>> Membership Policies and Process<br>
>><br>
>> Maria<br>
>><br>
>> There are very few votes in the CC, I am not sure of the exact number but<br>
>> I would guess that it is less than 10 per year.<br>
>><br>
>> The votes that I recall in the last year have been to appoint you and Till<br>
>> as members of the committee, to appoint me as chairman and the votes for the<br>
>> 2 stages of the 2017 RfP process. Perhaps someone else can correct me?<br>
>><br>
>> I am going to back out of this discussion until others to propose an<br>
>> alternative if they wish.<br>
>> ______<br>
>> Steven<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 20 Sep 2016, at 10:32, Maria Antonia Brovelli<br>
>> <maria.brovelli@polimi.it> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Dear Steven, as already said I don't agree on the voting mechanism and, as<br>
>> you have seen, there is not a consensus. I prefer that we before "solve"<br>
>> this question.<br>
>> And sorry for asking you again, you who have been doing so much work for<br>
>> this Committee ( thanks a lot!!!): nobody answered me about how many motions<br>
>> were voted in the last year. I want to put myself in Cameron's clothes (<br>
>> literally translated from italian; ��probably in English you don't have this<br>
>> expression. In any case it is like "point of view") and understand<br>
>> pragmatically how much commitment was and is implied with respect to voting.<br>
>> Thanks again and have a nice day<br>
>> Maria<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Sent from my Samsung device<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -------- Original message --------<br>
>> From: Steven Feldman <shfeldman@gmail.com><br>
>> Date: 19/09/2016 23:16 (GMT+01:00)<br>
>> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli@polimi.it>, Venka<br>
>> <venka.osgeo@gmail.com><br>
>> Cc: board@lists.osgeo.org, conference <conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org>,<br>
>> Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@gmail.com><br>
>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating<br>
>> Membership Policies and Process<br>
>><br>
>> Maria (and Venka)<br>
>><br>
>> My problem is that there are now 77 mails in this thread and I am not sure<br>
>> whether you and Venka voted against our vetoed. If you did veto, how do the<br>
>> substantial majority of the committee who voted in favour find a way to<br>
>> resolve?<br>
>><br>
>> To me this doesn't seem a very effective way of reaching a decision on a<br>
>> relatively minor procedural change which apparently is not very different to<br>
>> the procedures in some other committees.<br>
>><br>
>> Steven<br>
>> 07958 924 101<br>
>><br>
>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 21:57, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@gmail.com><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Maria,<br>
>><br>
>> What I've noticed as part of many OSGeo Committees is that after a while,<br>
>> some of the members become less active and less responsive, and that is ok.<br>
>><br>
>> A typical person's engagement is a little like a bell curve. They start<br>
>> off being respectful and quite during a learning phase, then get engaged and<br>
>> productive, often solving a particular "itch", then involvement tapers off<br>
>> as the person's interest are reprioritised. When that person becomes less<br>
>> active, they typically have excellent advise based on experience, worth<br>
>> listening too. However, because the project is not the person's primary<br>
>> focus they are not monitoring or voting on day-to-day project activities.<br>
>><br>
>> I'm suggesting our committee guidelines should allow for this engagement<br>
>> pattern, allowing old hands to provide advise when they have time and when<br>
>> practical.<br>
>><br>
>> On 20/09/2016 6:36 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Cameron, I understand your position. Anyway I think that more people<br>
>> participating to a discussion and taking decision is better than few. And,<br>
>> again, which is the problem in voting? Once you read a motion, if it is a<br>
>> simple one, it is easy to answer with 0 or +1 (it requires just a couple of<br>
>> seconds). If there are doubts, better to discuss it in such a way to find a<br>
>> larger consensus. Sorry, but I really don't see the problem.<br>
>> Cheers.<br>
>> Maria<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ----------------------------------------------------<br>
>> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli<br>
>> Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor<br>
>> Politecnico di Milano<br>
>><br>
>> ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo;<br>
>> ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET<br>
>> Sol Katz Award 2015<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)<br>
>> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321<br>
>> e-mail1: maria.brovelli@polimi.it<br>
>> e-mail2: prorettrice@como.polimi.it<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Cameron Shorter<br>
>> M +61 419 142 254<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________ Conference_dev mailing<br>
>> list<br>
>> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> -- Dr. Eng. Massimiliano Cannata Responsabile Area Geomatica Istituto<br>
> Scienze della Terra Scuola Universitaria Professionale della Svizzera<br>
> Italiana Via Trevano, c.p. 72 CH-6952 Canobbio-Lugano Tel: +41 (0)58 666 62<br>
> 14 Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09<br>
> _______________________________________________ Conference_dev mailing list<br>
> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Cameron Shorter<br>
> M +61 419 142 254<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Cameron Shorter<br>
> M +61 419 142 254<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>