<div dir="ltr">And again, please let me reiterate that I genuinely was not intending to be critical of anyone, everyone here has good intentions and there were lots of good ideas expressed. I am pretty sure nobody thought this thread would run to 150 emails when it started! But I think that the low vote on the final motion is an indication that perhaps this group is not the best venue to decide on these governance issues. And when people start suggesting that conference committee members should stand down for not being sufficiently involved in a very detailed governance discussion, it just seemed to me that things had (unintentionally) taken a wrong turn somehow.<div><br></div><div>I think that these governance questions apply across all OSGeo committees, so it may well make sense as Maria said for those with ideas on governance to make a proposal to the board and come up with a common approach across OSGeo committees, rather than having each committee invest time in creating their own approach. Though any general approach would need to recognize that some processes, like the FOSS4G vote, don't fit into the model of proposing a motion and passing or rejecting it.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div> Peter. </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank">venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear All,<br>
<br>
I agree that we go ahead with evaluation and selection<br>
of FOSS4G-2018 with the present committee including<br>
Jeroen and others who may wish to contribute to<br>
the discussions on the proposals and the selection<br>
process.<br>
<br>
Matters related to the governance of CC can be taken<br>
up separately after seeking clarifications from the<br>
board before we change things.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Venka<br>
<br>
P.S. Despite the fatigue brought about due to the large<br>
volume of mail exchanges on CC list recently,<br>
I am glad that our recent discussions have brought about<br>
a better understanding of each others opinions.<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 10/1/2016 7:36 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
Dear All Thanks a lot for your detailed and enlightening comments. I<br>
have understood now that the aim of this Committee is just to select<br>
the next FOSS4G. For the governance issues that I wrongly believed<br>
being part of our discussion, I will refer to the Board presenting<br>
to the next Board meeting a motion about the governance of the<br>
Committees. Enjoy your week end!! Maria<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Messaggio originale -------- Da: Jeroen Ticheler<br>
<<a href="mailto:jeroen.ticheler@geocat.net" target="_blank">jeroen.ticheler@geocat.net</a>> Data: 01/10/2016 00:08 (GMT+01:00) A:<br>
Peter Batty <<a href="mailto:peter@ebatty.com" target="_blank">peter@ebatty.com</a>> Cc: "<<a href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">conference_dev@lists.osgeo.o<wbr>rg</a>>"<br>
<<a href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">conference_dev@lists.osgeo.or<wbr>g</a>>, Eli Adam <<a href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us" target="_blank">eadam@co.lincoln.or.us</a>><br>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Voting & commitment<br>
<br>
+1 for Peter.<br>
<br>
The procedural discussions, membership clean up rounds (more often<br>
than voting rounds) and statements about the minimum qualifications<br>
of the membership made me step down. (Indeed I abused the proposed<br>
new guidelines as an escape route ;-) ). While I've always taken the<br>
selection work (reading the proposals) very seriously, have organized<br>
recurring events and have been involved in osgeo right from the<br>
start, these processes have made me feel unwelcome and uncomfortable.<br>
I am convinced that responsibility and commitment is worth at least<br>
as much as having run a FOSS4G conference. The recurring discussions<br>
on who is eligible to be member and is allowed to vote have been<br>
demotivating to me. I wouldn't be surprised if others have similar<br>
feelings but I can only speak for myself.<br>
<br>
To me OSGeo is a do-ocracy, I see bureaucracy step in more often and<br>
think it can be destructive for a volunteer organization that has<br>
transparency, openness and trust in each other as core values. I've<br>
previously opposed the formation of a Code of conduct Committee. Not<br>
because I think people should be offended in any way, or shouldn't be<br>
protected if an offense occurs. But because I think it is a step away<br>
from being truly open, trusting and respectful towards each other<br>
within OSGeo. Extra bureaucracy and guidelines aren't very helpful<br>
for that IMO, it often just creates barriers to get things done.<br>
<br>
Cheers and keep up the good work! Jeroen<br>
<br>
Op 30 sep. 2016 om 22:05 heeft Peter Batty<br></div></div>
<<a href="mailto:peter@ebatty.com" target="_blank">peter@ebatty.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:peter@ebatty.com" target="_blank">peter<wbr>@ebatty.com</a>>> het volgende geschreven:<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Yes, I was going to make a similar point. The primary task that this<br>
committee carries out is the annual selection of the next FOSS4G<br>
team, using a voting process that is unaffected by the current<br>
discussion. We also occasionally (usually once a year) vote to add a<br>
new member, this process is (I think) changing to use a different<br>
voting process, also unaffected by the current discussion (well I<br>
guess it was part of this originally but we have moved on).<br>
<br>
We have had over 150 emails now I think on this topic, to address<br>
something that almost never happens (that this committee votes on<br>
matters other than the previous two items I mentioned). We have spent<br>
way more time discussing this than I have ever seen the committee<br>
spend discussing a FOSS4G selection. We all have a finite amount of<br>
time we can devote to OSGeo work and I would prefer to see this group<br>
focus its energy on conference related matters.<br>
<br>
So I'm sorry but I certainly have "voter fatigue" on this issue as<br>
Steven said. This is not intended to be a criticism of anyone and I<br>
appreciate the passion and energy of those of you who want to improve<br>
our voting process. I voted in favor of the first motion but missed<br>
the second vote among the volume of mail that came through on this<br>
topic.<br>
<br>
I think that calls for people to stand down who didn't vote on this<br>
most recent motion are misguided. I serve on this committee as I want<br>
to help contribute to us continuing to have great FOSS4G conferences,<br>
and I think I have relevant experience to help with that. But I'm<br>
afraid I have a rapidly diminishing enthusiasm for further discussion<br>
on modifying a voting system that is almost never used by this<br>
committee.<br>
<br>
So anyway, I really don't mean this to sound like a negative email,<br>
but I would like to encourage those of you who have a strong opinion<br>
on voting processes to find a way to bring this matter to a<br>
conclusion soon. Then the rest of us whose focus and interest is on<br>
conference related matters will be happy to use the new process on<br>
the very rare occasions that we need it :).<br>
<br>
Cheers, Peter.<br>
<br>
P.S. for what it's worth, my main thought on organization is that I<br>
prefer a smaller, more engaged conference committee. I also have a<br>
slight leaning to a simple majority vote as I think it helps to make<br>
decisions more quickly, and we are not always good at that :).<br>
<br>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, David William Bitner<br></div></div>
<<a href="mailto:bitner@dbspatial.com" target="_blank">bitner@dbspatial.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:bitner@dbspatial.com" target="_blank">b<wbr>itner@dbspatial.com</a>>> wrote: I also<span class=""><br>
think in the case of this committee, there is one vote a year that<br>
the folks here universally care about: the FOSS4G selection.<br>
<br>
Other than that, people clearly have far less energy to spend paying<br>
attention to things like governance issues. Low/no quorum can handle<br>
this even with a large overall pool of committee members as folks who<br>
only care about that one vote can "ride it out" through the year, but<br>
pay close attention come rfp/selection time.<br>
<br>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eli Adam<br></span>
<<a href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us" target="_blank">eadam@co.lincoln.or.us</a><mailto<wbr>:<a href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us" target="_blank">eadam@co.lincoln.or.us</a>>> wrote: On<span class=""><br>
Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan<br></span><span class="">
<<a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank">venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank"><wbr>venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The way I look at the 25% quorum threshold, suggested by Eli, is<br>
that it is close to the "benevolent dictatorship" decision model.<br>
One of our projects in incubation was asked to retire since the<br>
lead developer proposed to adopt such a model for the project PSC.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
25% quorum threshold and "benevolent dictatorship" have nearly<br>
nothing in common.<br>
<br>
In benevolent dictatorship 1 person can overrule a 90% majority.<br>
This is entirely anti-democratic.<br>
<br>
In low (or no quorum), people can participate as it suits and<br>
interests them. If people are fine with the already voted stance,<br>
then they don't need to throw in their +1. If people are satisfied<br>
with the motion going either way, they certainly don't need to add<br>
their +0. During contentious or interesting topics that also fit<br>
the timing of activities in people's personal lives, then there is<br>
often high participation. While participation may range from<br>
1%-100%, the result is consensus or at least majority. Majority to<br>
consensus is entirely democratic. People choosing to not vote is not<br>
a loss of democracy. The potential is there if people are so<br>
inclined.<br>
<br>
Best regards, Eli ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
</span><a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><wbr><mailto:<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.o<wbr>sgeo.org</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- ******************************<wbr>****** David William Bitner<br></span>
dbSpatial LLC <a href="tel:612-424-9932" value="+16124249932" target="_blank">612-424-9932</a><tel:<a href="tel:612-424-9932" value="+16124249932" target="_blank">612-424-9932</a>><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________ Conference_dev<br>
mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><wbr><mailto:<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.o<wbr>sgeo.org</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________ Conference_dev<br>
mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><wbr><mailto:<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.o<wbr>sgeo.org</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote><span class="im HOEnZb">
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________ Conference_dev<br>
mailing list <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/conference_dev</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>