<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Tom,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It is good to see this development!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m in broad support of the TOR as at [1] below.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Two suggestions:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><ul class="MailOutline"><li class="">Voting:</li><ul class=""><li class="">I think that the two day limit on voting is too short, based on my experiences with the Incubation Committee. </li><li class="">Time needs to be allowed for members to find the proposal, review a proposal, think about it and then vote. </li><li class="">When committee members are busy, travelling, on holidays etc, 2 days is too short.</li><li class="">I suggest a one week limit to each vote.</li></ul></ul><div><br class=""></div><div><ul class="MailOutline"><li class="">Quorum [2]</li><ul class=""><li class="">I think that a Quorum of two is too small. </li><li class="">Is the committee expecting minimal input from members? If so then I’d question the raison d'etre of the committee.</li><li class="">Perhaps set the Quorum at 51% of votes or something similar?</li></ul></ul><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Kind regards,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bruce</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">[2] <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quorum" class="">https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quorum</a> </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 2 Feb 2023, at 01:44, Tom Kralidis <<a href="mailto:tomkralidis@gmail.com" class="">tomkralidis@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Hi all: triggered by our recently updated MOU with OGC, and as discussed/presented at FOSS4G Florence, various members of the OSGeo standards community have been working together to establish a dedicated OSGeo Standards Committee. The first order of business is to put forth a Terms of Reference as part of bootstrapping.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The Terms of Reference can be found in [1].</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As part of bootstrapping, the ToR needs to be agreed upon by the initial Committee membership. Once consensus is reached, then the Committee creation can be discussed at the next OSGeo Board meeting (end February) for Board approval.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I will start with my +1.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">..Tom</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">[1] <a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Standards_Committee#Terms_of_Reference" class="">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Standards_Committee#Terms_of_Reference</a></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Standards mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Standards@lists.osgeo.org" class="">Standards@lists.osgeo.org</a><br class="">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>