[Board] [OSGeo-Conf] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Sat Oct 8 10:04:27 PDT 2016

+1 to Cameron's email.

For what it's worth, it was mentioned somewhere along the way that the
board voting procedure, which I think is what we are supposed to be
following in terms of these vetoes etc, says that "If a motion is vetoed,
and it cannot be revised to satisfy all parties, then it can be resubmitted
for an override vote, in which a majority of all Board members indicating
+1 is required to pass it."

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure

So if someone wants to re-propose the original motion which had strong
majority support at the time, we can re-vote on that, if enough people are
still watching. I don't especially want to re-propose it myself as I don't
have a strong interest in this procedural stuff, and I have lost track of
whether there were any amendments to the original motion proposed by Steven
that should be incorporated in a re-submitted motion.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Maria,
>
> I fear that you are not appreciating that by applying a veto, and then not
> stepping up to "do whatever it takes to get resolution", you are breaking
> one of the core principles of successful open source communities.
>
> It breaks the motivation and enthusiasm of volunteers. Note Stephen's
> initial drive, motivation and enthusiasm changing to his submitting his
> resignation.
>
> Stephen's Return-On-Effort for his contribution has been significantly
> impacted by the amount of red-tape imposed upon him. It has impacted one of
> our key human driving motivators - our desire for autonomy and ability to
> set our own direction. (Refer to Daniel Pink's "Drive" [1] which summarises
> research on motivation).
>
> Likewise we have seen the rest of the conference committee suffer email
> fatigue and drop out of the conversation. Silently dropping out of the
> volunteer community.
>
> Please ask yourself:
>
> * Is OSGeo better without Stephen being involved in it?
>
> * Is OSGeo better without Stephen taking on the significant amount of work
> he has been doing cleaning up FOSS4G processes?
>
> * Am I prepared to take on all the work that Stephen is doing if he is to
> leave?
>
> * Am I prepared to lead a new proposal through a voting process all the
> way to conclusion? (Noting how hard it has been so far)
>
> If your answer is "No" to any of the above, please re-consider your veto
> vote. I suspect you really would like to back our enthusiastic OSGeo
> volunteers. Usually it is better to get a "good enough" solution than "no
> solution at all". It can always be improved in a later iteration. And I
> suspect you would want to attract and encourage our volunteers to
> participate?
>
> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
>
> Warm regards, Cameron
>
>
> On 8/10/2016 1:33 AM, Even Rouault wrote:
>
>> Maria,
>>
>> I'm not sure what is the exact scope you intend with "Committees", and in
>> particular if that would apply to the voting rules of the PSC of
>> projects, but
>> as far as I'm concerned, I'm rather satisfied with what we have currently
>> (for
>> the GDAL project). I would fear that requirements for a minimum quorum
>> could
>> cause issues since it is not uncommon to have very few people taking part
>> to
>> the vote of some decisions.
>> Eli Adam pointed in
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-Septem
>> ber/003987.html
>> several examples of different projects with low vote participation in some
>> votes. That is a bit sad of course, we'd like to have 100% participation,
>> but
>> that's the reality.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Even
>>
>> Dear Steven,
>>>
>>> I don't withdraw my vetoe. As said,  I'll ask  the Board to decide about
>>> the governance of the Committees.
>>>
>>> Have a wonderful holiday!
>>>
>>> Cheers to everybody.
>>>
>>> Maria
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
>>> Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
>>> Politecnico di Milano
>>>
>>> ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"; OSGeo;
>>> ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET
>>> Sol
>>> Katz Award 2015
>>>
>>> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
>>> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
>>> e-mail1: <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it> maria.brovelli at polimi.it
>>> e-mail2: prorettrice at como.polimi.it
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Da: Conference_dev <conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> per conto di
>>> Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> Inviato: martedì 4 ottobre 2016
>>> 20.18
>>> A: Conference Dev
>>> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference
>>> Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
>>>
>>> It isn’t clear to me whether Venka and Maria withdrew their vetoes.
>>>
>>> My reading is that the committee whilst voting by a majority for the
>>> original motion does not feel strongly about the matter and there is no
>>> appetite to extend the discussion. I do not wish to take a chair’s
>>> initiative to force the motion through and then attempt to impose its
>>> consequences, I think that should be up to the next chair of the
>>> committee.
>>>
>>> It is my intention to stand down as chair of the conference committee at
>>> the end of the 2018 selection process.
>>>
>>> So let’s leave the motion undecided and focus on the selection for 2018
>>> until the end of the year.
>>>
>>> In that regard, I will be travelling between October 13th and November
>>> 7th,
>>> internet may be limited for some of the time. Is there anyone willing to
>>> stand in to push things along (facilitate questions on LoI's, trigger the
>>> vote and notify the results) whilst I am away? I will be back to pick
>>> things up before the final proposals come in.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> ______
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Sep 2016, at 13:45, Cameron Shorter
>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com<mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Steven, others,
>>>
>>> The conference committee is ineffective if it can't make efficient
>>> decisions. Usually, any decision is better than no decision, and is
>>> certainly the case for this motion. I'm in favour of Steven, as chair,
>>> using his best judgement to finalise this vote and move forward to being
>>> effective again.
>>>
>>> Steven, I trust your judgement, and you have my vote.
>>>
>>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>>
>>> On 30/09/2016 7:35 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>> I am combining Maria’s mail and Venka’s (copied below) and responding to
>>> both
>>>
>>> Several people have expressed concern that a lot of committee members
>>> have
>>> not voted on the recent amendment and have suggested that if they do not
>>> vote in a further round of voting on the amendment and/or the original
>>> motion they should be obliged to stand down for the committee.
>>>
>>> It has been suggested that not voting indicates a lack of commitment. I
>>> disagree, we have a committee whose expertise is in the delivery of
>>> FOSS4G
>>> events, particularly the global events. I would not be surprised or
>>> concerned if several of them are not interested in the procedural details
>>> of what quorum we should require on the odd occasion that we vote. As
>>> long
>>> as they commit their time and experience to carefully considering the
>>> LoI’s and Proposals in the FOSS4G selection process, asking penetrating
>>> and insightful questions and then voting to select our recommendation to
>>> the board I am grateful for their participation.
>>>
>>> Not withstanding what I have just said, I do believe that the committee
>>> size should be limited to 11 and should have a defined retirement process
>>> as I proposed in the original motion.
>>>
>>> I don’t see the lack of votes for Maria’s amendment as a dereliction of
>>> duty, I see it as a sign of exhaustion with this seemingly never ending
>>> debate. The mail trail now exceeds 120! After extensive discussion, the
>>> original motion which incorporated the standard Committee Guidelines on
>>> voting was voted for by a strong majority of the committee (+1 = 12, +0 =
>>> 1, -1 = 2, no votes = 3 of which one verbally supported the motion but
>>> did
>>> not place a formal vote). We have now spent nearly 2 working weeks
>>> discussing  amendments and have voted on one (there are potentially 4
>>> more
>>> amendments to discuss and vote on, one of which potentially reverses the
>>> intention of the original motion by seeking to increase rather than
>>> reduce
>>> the size of the committee). In my opinion, this is not the reasonable
>>> pursuit of consensus it is bordering on an abuse of process.
>>>
>>> The voting rules that were proposed in the original motion are based on
>>> the
>>> Committee Guidelines which are in use in several of our committees and
>>> PSCs. If these guidelines represent a ‘benevolent dictatorship’ (what
>>> others may describe as a do-ocracy) that is now considered unacceptable,
>>> then it is for the Board to initiate a discussion (and presumably a vote
>>> amongst the charter membership) that changes these guidelines for all
>>> committees not just for the Conference Committee.
>>>
>>> It is up to Venka and Maria if they wish to insist on a further vote. If
>>> we
>>> are to vote again, we need to be clear whether we are voting on the
>>> original motion or the amended motion or a further amended motion which
>>> also includes some or all of the further amendments (2-5) which have yet
>>> to be fully discussed.
>>>
>>> I recognise that as the proposer of the original motion who has strong
>>> views on this topic, I may be struggling to maintain the balance and
>>> objectivity necessary to act as chair on this matter. If anyone feels
>>> that
>>> the committee would be better served by me standing aside for the
>>> remainder of the discussion and voting on this matter, please say so and
>>> I
>>> will temporarily stand down. When the committee reaches a conclusion on
>>> the motion and we have been through the cycle of retirements and
>>> elections
>>> (presumably early 2017 after the FOSS4G 2018 selection is completed), I
>>> suggest that the new committee selects its chairman.
>>>
>>> I will be going off line from the end of business today until Wednesday
>>> to
>>> celebrate the Jewish New Year. If there is to be further discussion or
>>> voting initiated I hope that the vote extends until I am back online.
>>>
>>> Shanah tovah u’metukah (may you have a good and sweet year)
>>>
>>> ______
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Sep 2016, at 07:43, Maria Antonia Brovelli
>>> <maria.brovelli at polimi.it<mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Steven
>>> I'm also confused and demoralised as well. The main problem in my opinion
>>> is the inactivity of this commission (it could be also of other
>>> commissions, but I'm not part of other commissions). I'm surprised about
>>> how the main problem is to find an easy solution when the problem is why
>>> 9
>>> people didn't find the time (= interest) of voting. Even if volunteers
>>> and, in my opinion, more as volunteers we have to be reliable people
>>> committed with our community. Unfortunately I'm not able to notice that
>>> attitude in the last voting. If I have to tell you the truth, I'm, above
>>> all, sad and surprise that for the most of people this is a normal
>>> situation at which we have simply to put a patch. Sorry for being so
>>> direct, obviously I'm not thinking of you, who have been doing so much
>>> for
>>> this Committee ( thanks again) or other people, but the situation is
>>> really and definitely different with respect of that I thought to find in
>>> an OSGeo Committee. Good day to everybody.
>>> Maria
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Messaggio originale --------
>>> Da: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com<mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>>
>>> Data: 30/09/2016 00:48 (GMT+01:00)
>>> A: Maria Antonia Brovelli
>>> <maria.brovelli at polimi.it<mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>>, Conference
>>> Dev
>>> <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>>
>>> Oggetto: Re: R: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5):
>>> Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
>>>
>>> Maria
>>>
>>> I am confused. I think you mean that the amendment did not pass? Are you
>>> withdrawing your veto of the original motion (which had support from a
>>> substantial majority of the committee)?
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "Therefore we will vote as in the past for the other
>>> items."?  What other items? The only voting rules we had in the past were
>>> the Committee Guidelines, which were incorporated into the original
>>> motion. Can you clarify?
>>>
>>> Venka could you advise whether your veto still stands following this vote
>>> on Maria's amendment?
>>>
>>> This example of our decision making process cannot be appropriate for a
>>> voluntary community. Please let's bring this to a conclusion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:46, Maria Antonia Brovelli
>>> <maria.brovelli at polimi.it<mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Steven
>>> The motion didn't pass.
>>> Therefore we will vote as in the past for the other items.
>>> Many thanks.
>>> Best regards.
>>> Maria
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Venka said:
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Sorry if this mail sounds a little mixed-up as
>>> I am trying to answer multiple points raised
>>> after the voting status on the amended motion
>>> was declared.
>>>
>>> The way I look at the 25% quorum threshold, suggested by Eli,
>>> is that it is close to the "benevolent dictatorship"
>>> decision model. One of our projects in incubation
>>> was asked to retire since the lead developer proposed
>>> to adopt such a model for the project PSC.
>>>
>>> Our Charter Member rules allow for retiring
>>> members who have not voted over a continuous period
>>> of two years. Since charter members vote only for
>>> the board election, this means that they are retired
>>> if they do not cast their one vote (for Board election)
>>> in consecutive years.
>>>
>>> Considering the above, I suggest that the Amended Motion
>>> for quorum be tabled for one last time with a specific
>>> indication that members who have not voted for
>>> the motion in two (or three) consecutive rounds of voting
>>> will be considered as retired and the votes by the
>>> members who participate in the third round of voting
>>> would be considered valid.
>>>
>>> If we still have only 7 members voting for the third round
>>> of voting, the majority votes among the 7 could be
>>> used if the motion has passed or not.
>>>
>>> Regarding the query from Steve whether some of us would
>>> like reconsider our votes in the initial round of voting,
>>> I think, that since the voting results were already
>>> declared, it would be better to decide with the third
>>> and final round of voting.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Venka
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cameron Shorter
>>> M +61 419 142 254
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20161008/dc77e902/attachment.htm>