<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>About voting</div>
<div>+1 adopting board procedure with 50 % quorum</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>About the new points </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>a) +1</div>
<div>b) +1</div>
<div> 0 voting in 2016 or 2017.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Lovely Sunday</div>
<div>Maria </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757">Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-------- Messaggio originale --------<br>
Da: Venkatesh Raghavan <venka.osgeo@gmail.com> <br>
Data: 25/09/2016 04:53 (GMT+01:00) <br>
A: "<conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org>" <conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org> <br>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
<br>
<br>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Cameron and all,<br>
<br>
Sorry for the delay in my response.<br>
My comments inline.<br>
<br>
On 9/22/2016 5:50 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>
> Thanks Maxi for the suggestion. I like it.<br>
><br>
> I agree that the board voting processes are good. I'd actually prefer to<br>
> use them as written, without addition of a mention of "needing 50% of<br>
> members to vote".<br>
<br>
I agree to that.<br>
<br>
><br>
> My reasons:<br>
><br>
> 1. It retains consistency between committees.<br>
><br>
> 2. It will still work within a weakened committee (with many inactive<br>
> members)<br>
><br>
> Maria, Venka, others,<br>
><br>
> Do you have any objections to adopting board voting procedures?<br>
<br>
I am all for adopting board voting procedures and quorum requirements<br>
(Section 4.5 of our bylaws [1]). I think the board meeting procedures<br>
has served us well and can be adopted for our committees too.<br>
<br>
I would like to request consideration for following points when<br>
the revised motion is tabled.<br>
<br>
a) The current member list [1] shows 16 members. I would suggest<br>
that the CC starts off with the current members and we add one<br>
new member by election to have an odd number of committee members.<br>
Hence, the committee could have 17 members which is 5% of our<br>
charter membership (17/312). I think having 5% of our charter<br>
members to decide about one of our most important activities<br>
(FOSS4G conference and events) will not only allow us to<br>
have broad diversity in the CC but the induction of one<br>
new member (to add to the present 16) would also afford<br>
an opportunity for some who resigned from the CC in the<br>
midst of this discussion to return and serve the board.<br>
17 members in the CC would mean quorum on 9 members for<br>
a meeting to be valid.<br>
<br>
b) Regarding retirement policy, we could adopt same as that<br>
of the board [2]. CC membership could be for a 2 year term<br>
with half of the CC seats coming up for election each year.<br>
We could either consider having an election in 2016 after<br>
the motion on policies and Process is passed. Or, allow<br>
the present committee to continue for an year and hold<br>
election in 2017 with the 9 seats (9 of the longest<br>
serving members vacating their seats in CC) coming up for<br>
election. <br>
<br>
Voting for CC members could restricted to the remaining conference <br>
committee members and board members who are not members of the <br>
conference committee (same as what was outlined in the original<br>
motion tabled by Steve).<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Venka<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html" target="_BLANK">
http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html</a><br>
[2] <a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Election_Procedure" target="_BLANK">
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Election_Procedure</a><br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 22/09/2016 1:48 AM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:<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<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:massimiliano.cannata@gmail.com">mailto: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<br>
>>> at board level [1]?<br>
>>> (And herein after reported for shake of semplicity...)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Board Voting Procedure<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Purpose<br>
>>><br>
>>> This document explains the voting procedure for motions put forward<br>
>>> to the OSGeo Board of Directors.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Voting Process<br>
>>><br>
>>> * Board voting occurs during monthly meetings, as well as a<br>
>>> followup vote 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<br>
>>> provide clear reasoning and alternate approaches to resolving the<br>
>>> problem within the two business days.<br>
>>> * A vote of "-0" indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect. A<br>
>>> "0" indicates no opinion. A "+0" indicate mild support, but has<br>
>>> no effect.<br>
>>> * A motion will be passed once all of the Board members place a<br>
>>> vote, and no vetoes are received (-1).<br>
>>> * If a motion is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all<br>
>>> parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote, in<br>
>>> which a majority of all Board members indicating +1 is required<br>
>>> 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<br>
>>> Board members place a vote"...<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Best,<br>
>>> Maxi<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> [1] <a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure" target="_BLANK">
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>
>>> <<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>>>:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi Maria,<br>
>>><br>
>>> I think we need to ensure that any rules we put in place will be<br>
>>> viable under both robust and weakened committees. A simple test<br>
>>> is "Would these guidelines work within a flagging committee?" Eg:<br>
>>> What if 8 out of 11 of the members have become inactive and are<br>
>>> uncontactable? Would these guidelines still work?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Note also that committee members are volunteers and we can't<br>
>>> "require" them to vote. We can "request" they vote, maybe even go<br>
>>> as far as "expecting" them to vote.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I'll propose alternative text. As it stands, I think Steven's<br>
>>> words are a better starting point to work from. (I'm aware he put<br>
>>> a lot of time into it, and it went through a number of iterations<br>
>>> of reviews, which is partly why I think it is well worded).<br>
>>><br>
>>> Suggested alternative text (which includes the 50% of members<br>
>>> voting):<br>
>>><br>
>>> /Everyday topics will be decided upon by an open vote of all<br>
>>> committee members in a clearly designated separate mail thread<br>
>>> (+1/-1) over a minimum of two business days. We will aim to<br>
>>> ensure at least 50% of members vote. Ideally we aim for consensus<br>
>>> falling back on simple majority vote where necessary. The result<br>
>>> will be clearly declared afterwards (or whatever is decided)./<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 21/09/2016 5:06 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:<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<br>
>>>> order to consider valid the vote. Reached this threshold, the<br>
>>>> majority rule is adopted.<br>
>>>> If there is no majority consensus, the members who didn't vote<br>
>>>> are required to vote ( ar least one of them). In case of parity,<br>
>>>> the motion is discussed again until a convergence is found.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> If anyone has more comments or suggestions that they wish to<br>
>>>> make please get them by 18.00 GMT on 22nd September. Voting the<br>
>>>> motion will be open then 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>
>>>> <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>> Date: 20/09/2016 20:25 (GMT+01:00)<br>
>>>> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli@polimi.it><br>
>>>> <<a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it">mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a>><br>
>>>> Cc: conference <conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org><br>
>>>> <<a href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee<br>
>>>> - Updating Membership Policies and Process<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Thanks Maria<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I support a >50% must vote and the majority of the voters to<br>
>>>> decide. Did 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<br>
>>>> thread for 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 <<a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it">mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a>>><br>
>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> If we are speaking about less than one vote per month, probably<br>
>>>>> it is not 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<br>
>>>>> acceptance 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>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>>>>> Date: 20/09/2016 11:51 (GMT+01:00)<br>
>>>>> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli@polimi.it<br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it">mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a>>><br>
>>>>> Cc: conference <conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>>><br>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee<br>
>>>>> - Updating Membership Policies and Process<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Maria<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> There are very few votes in the CC, I am not sure of the exact<br>
>>>>> number but 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<br>
>>>>> you and Till as members of the committee, to appoint me as<br>
>>>>> chairman and the votes for the 2 stages of the 2017 RfP<br>
>>>>> process. Perhaps someone else can correct me?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I am going to back out of this discussion until others to<br>
>>>>> propose an 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 <<a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it">mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a>>><br>
>>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Dear Steven, as already said I don't agree on the voting<br>
>>>>>> mechanism and, as you have seen, there is not a consensus. I<br>
>>>>>> prefer that we before "solve" this question.<br>
>>>>>> And sorry for asking you again, you who have been doing so<br>
>>>>>> much work for this Committee ( thanks a lot!!!): nobody<br>
>>>>>> answered me about how many motions were voted in the last<br>
>>>>>> year. I want to put myself in Cameron's clothes ( literally<br>
>>>>>> translated from italian; ��probably in English you don't have<br>
>>>>>> this expression. In any case it is like "point of view") and<br>
>>>>>> understand pragmatically how much commitment was and is<br>
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>> <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>>>>>> Date: 19/09/2016 23:16 (GMT+01:00)<br>
>>>>>> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli@polimi.it<br>
>>>>>> <<a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it">mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a>>>, Venka<br>
>>>>>> <venka.osgeo@gmail.com <<a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com">mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>>>>>> Cc: board@lists.osgeo.org <<a href="mailto:board@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:board@lists.osgeo.org</a>>,<br>
>>>>>> conference <conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
>>>>>> <<a href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>>>, Cameron Shorter<br>
>>>>>> <cameron.shorter@gmail.com <<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference<br>
>>>>>> Committee - Updating 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<br>
>>>>>> am not sure whether you and Venka voted against our vetoed. If<br>
>>>>>> you did veto, how do the substantial majority of the committee<br>
>>>>>> who voted in favour find a way to resolve?<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> To me this doesn't seem a very effective way of reaching a<br>
>>>>>> decision on a relatively minor procedural change which<br>
>>>>>> apparently is not very different to the procedures in some<br>
>>>>>> other committees.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Steven<br>
>>>>>> 07958 924 101<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 21:57, Cameron Shorter<br>
>>>>>> <cameron.shorter@gmail.com <<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Hi Maria,<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> What I've noticed as part of many OSGeo Committees is that<br>
>>>>>>> after a while, some of the members become less active and<br>
>>>>>>> less responsive, and that is ok.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> A typical person's engagement is a little like a bell curve.<br>
>>>>>>> They start off being respectful and quite during a learning<br>
>>>>>>> phase, then get engaged and productive, often solving a<br>
>>>>>>> particular "itch", then involvement tapers off as the<br>
>>>>>>> person's interest are reprioritised. When that person becomes<br>
>>>>>>> less active, they typically have excellent advise based on<br>
>>>>>>> experience, worth listening too. However, because the project<br>
>>>>>>> is not the person's primary focus they are not monitoring or<br>
>>>>>>> voting on day-to-day project activities.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I'm suggesting our committee guidelines should allow for this<br>
>>>>>>> engagement pattern, allowing old hands to provide advise when<br>
>>>>>>> they have time and when practical.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> On 20/09/2016 6:36 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Cameron, I understand your position. Anyway I think that<br>
>>>>>>>> more people participating to a discussion and taking<br>
>>>>>>>> decision is better than few. And, again, which is the<br>
>>>>>>>> problem in voting? Once you read a motion, if it is a simple<br>
>>>>>>>> one, it is easy to answer with 0 or +1 (it requires just a<br>
>>>>>>>> couple of seconds). If there are doubts, better to discuss<br>
>>>>>>>> it in such a way to find a larger consensus. Sorry, but I<br>
>>>>>>>> really don't see the problem.<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Cheers.<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Maria<br>
>>>>>>>><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<br>
>>>>>>>> (C3M)";OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind<br>
>>>>>>>> Europa Challenge; SIFET<br>
>>>>>>>> *SolKatzAward2015*<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)<br>
>>>>>>>> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob.+39-328-0023867 - fax.<br>
>>>>>>>> +39-031-3327321<br>
>>>>>>>> e-mail1: maria.brovelli@polimi.it<br>
>>>>>>>> <<a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it">mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a>><br>
>>>>>>>> e-mail2:prorettrice@como.polimi.it<br>
>>>>>>>> <<a href="mailto:prorettrice@como.polimi.it">mailto:prorettrice@como.polimi.it</a>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>>> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
>>>> <<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_BLANK">
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>>>> <<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_BLANK">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>><br>
>>><br>
>>> -- Cameron Shorter<br>
>>> M +61 419 142 254<br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________ Conference_dev<br>
>>> mailing list Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_BLANK">
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>>> <<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_BLANK">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>><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<br>
>>> 666 62 14 Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09<br>
>>> _______________________________________________ Conference_dev<br>
>>> mailing list Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_BLANK">
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><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" target="_BLANK">
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_BLANK">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>