<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Maria,</p>
<p>I feel the level of red-tape introduced by introducing a quota to
voting puts excessive work on committee chairs and a better result
is achieved by trusting the judgment of our chairs.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>People join committees, are active for a while, and typically
then become less active.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So what should a committee do when it doesn't reach a quorum for
votes? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>We could encourage less active members to leave, but I think this
is counter-productive. Karl Fogel, author of "Producing Open
Source" suggests keeping old wise people as their judgement is
usually worth listening too, even if only occasionally. [1] Also,
it is often socially divisional negotiating the process of
removing a person from a committee, and if adopted should be
backed by a well considered OSGeo process. OSGeo doesn't such a
process.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>* If a vote is important then a chair-person can try chasing
people individually to vote. Chasing people is time consuming,
typically involving sending individual emails to everyone on the
committee.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>* After a while, chairs (and members) learn contributor activity
levels and interests. Some members ignore voting on sensitive
issues. Others vote based on trusting the judgement of others.
Some have become less engaged, but it nice to hear their opinion
when provided.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>My advise is that we trust our committee chairs to determine
whether sufficient members of their committee have voted. Lets not
make it harder for them by forcing them to chase an illusive
quorum to get a motion through.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>If the board finds that a committee has become self serving and
contrary to the interests of OSGeo, the board still has the right
to step in. (This hasn't happened yet in OSGeo's 10 year history).</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>If we do introduce a quorum requirement to committees, we also
need to address the question of what to do when a quorum isn't
reached.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Warm regards, Cameron<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://producingoss.com/en/committers.html#dormant-committers">http://producingoss.com/en/committers.html#dormant-committers</a><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/09/2016 3:22 AM, Maria Antonia
Brovelli wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DB3PR06MB0729CA7DDCED25523FFC4FF28AC80@DB3PR06MB0729.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<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>
<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 face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3"><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 face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3">Vice
Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor<br>
Politecnico di Milano</font></div>
<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3"><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
face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3"><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="'Trebuchet
MS', sans-serif" size="3"><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 face="'Trebuchet MS',
sans-serif" size="3"><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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>e-mail1: <font
color="333333"><font face="'Trebuchet MS',
sans-serif"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it">maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a></font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="0" id="LPNoLP">e-mail2</a>:</span><span>
<font color="333333"><font face="'Trebuchet MS',
sans-serif"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:prorettrice@como.polimi.it">prorettrice@como.polimi.it</a></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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><font
face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3"> </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
style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif"
color="#000000"><b>Da:</b> Eli Adam
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us"><eadam@co.lincoln.or.us></a><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;
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a><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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure</a><br>
[2] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com"><cameron.shorter@gmail.com></a> 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
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it"><maria.brovelli@polimi.it></a><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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it">maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a><br>
> e-mail2: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:prorettrice@como.polimi.it">prorettrice@como.polimi.it</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
> Da: Conference_dev
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:conference_dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org"><conference_dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org></a> per conto
di<br>
> Cameron Shorter <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com"><cameron.shorter@gmail.com></a><br>
> Inviato: mercoledì 21 settembre 2016 22.50<br>
> A: Darrell Fuhriman; massimiliano cannata<br>
> Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a><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>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:massimiliano.cannata@gmail.com"><massimiliano.cannata@gmail.com></a> 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com"><cameron.shorter@gmail.com></a>:<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
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><shfeldman@gmail.com></a><br>
>> Date: 20/09/2016 20:25 (GMT+01:00)<br>
>> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it"><maria.brovelli@polimi.it></a><br>
>> Cc: conference
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a><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>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it"><maria.brovelli@polimi.it></a> 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
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><shfeldman@gmail.com></a><br>
>> Date: 20/09/2016 11:51 (GMT+01:00)<br>
>> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it"><maria.brovelli@polimi.it></a><br>
>> Cc: conference
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a><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>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it"><maria.brovelli@polimi.it></a> 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
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><shfeldman@gmail.com></a><br>
>> Date: 19/09/2016 23:16 (GMT+01:00)<br>
>> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it"><maria.brovelli@polimi.it></a>, Venka<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com"><venka.osgeo@gmail.com></a><br>
>> Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:board@lists.osgeo.org">board@lists.osgeo.org</a>, conference
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>,<br>
>> Cameron Shorter
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com"><cameron.shorter@gmail.com></a><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
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com"><cameron.shorter@gmail.com></a><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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it">maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a><br>
>> e-mail2: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:prorettrice@como.polimi.it">prorettrice@como.polimi.it</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><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>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><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>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254</pre>
</body>
</html>