<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>I again propose to vote on 1) </div>
<div>We have been discussing for many days and sooner or later we have to take a decision, which will not be the same for all of us.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please, shall we vote on </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board . Voting<br>
procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is adopted.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div> ?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best.</div>
<div>Maria </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: till.adams@fossgis.de <br>
Data: 27/09/2016 08:59 (GMT+01:00) <br>
A: conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org <br>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
<br>
<br>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi Eli, @all,<br>
<br>
indeed this is a different question and before I read your example of 4 <br>
people having read the full proposals instead of 8, that just skimmed <br>
through it, I'd have said, that we for sure need a 50% quorum.<br>
<br>
But, thinking about this for as while, I still think that 50% quorum is <br>
needed: I do not want to say, that the CC is the "most important" <br>
committee, but it cares for our most important flagship:<br>
Our global conference. So if I want to be member of that committee, <br>
everybody in and around OSGeo can expect, that I will do my job.<br>
My opinion: If I will not do my job, you can remove me from the <br>
committee, because I am useless and I just occupy a position, other <br>
motivated people want to have but presumably can't.<br>
<br>
I think the idea of Steven, to reduce the voting numbers to 11 helps us <br>
to catch up with that problem. If we have 11 interested, motivated and <br>
engaged people, with 1-2 coming in and 1-2 leaving every year, we should <br>
be able to have at least more than 4 people reading the proposals and <br>
more than 5 people, who vote.<br>
<br>
Regards, Till<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 2016-09-27 00:03, schrieb Eli Adam:<br>
> Hi Maria and all,<br>
><br>
> Maybe it was missed in the length of the other thread. I had some<br>
> specific question and cited specific examples. What are your <br>
> thoughts<br>
> on these items?<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli<br>
> <maria.brovelli@polimi.it> wrote:<br>
>> Here the amended motion.<br>
>><br>
>> In my opinion it is the very time of voting to be able to go ahead.<br>
>><br>
>> It is better to vote before for 1) in such a way that we have a <br>
>> procedure<br>
>> and then vote for 2-5.<br>
>><br>
>> Steven, I leave you to decide the time.<br>
>><br>
>> Best.<br>
>> Maria<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> 1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board <br>
>> Voting<br>
>> procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is <br>
>> adopted.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> I'd like to propose quorum of greater than or equal to 25%. Is that<br>
> agreeable to you?<br>
><br>
> I think that we need to be based on reality, not ideals. Here are<br>
> some OSGeo projects with votes less than 50% including the conference<br>
> committee making the most important decision it makes every year. To<br>
> me these represent continued success, not failure.<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-132" target="_BLANK">
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-132</a><br>
> <a href="http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-89.html" target="_BLANK">http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-89.html</a><br>
> <a href="https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/44" target="_BLANK">
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/44</a><br>
> <a href="https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc63_sparse_datasets_improvements" target="_BLANK">
https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc63_sparse_datasets_improvements</a><br>
><br>
> These projects have many more votes with greater than 50%<br>
> participation; maybe those were more interesting topics or better<br>
> timed with personal events in people's lives.<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> 2) The number of members of the Conference Committee is equal to 17.<br>
><br>
> Previously Paul made a call for everyone who didn't vote to resign,<br>
> <br>
> <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2012-April/001723.html" target="_BLANK">
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2012-April/001723.html</a><br>
> and I think that was generally poorly received. Subsequently I think<br>
> Cameron did something like that with the intent of spurring people<br>
> into action (which worked).<br>
><br>
> 50% is fine with me except to keep the committee functional, we need<br>
> to routinely raise motions to remove committee members who haven't<br>
> voted. I think a better method is a lower quorum. Both work but one<br>
> seems unfriendly.<br>
><br>
> What do other committee members think? What is a reasonable and<br>
> obtainable quorum percentage? Is removing members for lack of<br>
> participation a good idea?<br>
><br>
> I'd rather the votes of 4 people who read three entire 50+ page<br>
> proposals than the votes of 8 people who skimmed the proposals or of<br>
> those same 4 people after removing the non-voting other 4 yielding<br>
> 100% voting.<br>
><br>
> I'm glad that we're clarifying our operating procedures on the <br>
> committee.<br>
><br>
> Best regards, Eli<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>> 3) The retirement policy adopted by the Conference Committee is the <br>
>> same as<br>
>> that of the Board.<br>
>><br>
>> Conference Committee membership is for a 2 year term with half of <br>
>> the<br>
>> Conference Committee seats coming up for election each year.<br>
>><br>
>> 4) The present Committee continues for an year and we hold election <br>
>> in 2017<br>
>> with the 9 seats (9 of the longest serving members vacating their <br>
>> seats in<br>
>> Conference Committee) coming up for election.<br>
>><br>
>> 5) Voting for Conference Committee members is restricted to the <br>
>> remaining<br>
>> Conference Committee members and Board members who are not members <br>
>> of the<br>
>> Conference Committee<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)"; <br>
>> OSGeo;<br>
>> ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; <br>
>> SIFET<br>
>><br>
>> Sol Katz Award 2015<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)<br>
>><br>
>> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321<br>
>><br>
>> e-mail1: maria.brovelli@polimi.it<br>
>><br>
>> e-mail2: prorettrice@como.polimi.it<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" target="_BLANK">
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><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>