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

[Michael Terner]

Please count another *strong +1 *to Cameron's observations and suggestions.

>From our vantage of needing strong, stable support from Conference Dev (for
FOSS4G '17 in Boston), there is a need to bring these discussions to
closure, and without losing some of the braintrust. Again, from our
perspective less bureaucracy, and more agility will be good things. And,
while the pool of people who are "most interested and involved" may go
through some cycles, there has always seemed to be a strong critical mass,
and that's fine. Would love to see an outcome where Steven's proposals can
come into some form of being, and for Steven's hand to return to the
tiller...

Respectfully, MT

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com> wrote:

> +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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>



-- 
*Michael Terner*
*Executive Vice President*
617-447-2468 Direct | 617-447-2400 Main
Applied Geographics, Inc.
24 School Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108
www.AppGeo.com
*Celebrating our 25th Anniversary *

-- 
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or legally 
privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or otherwise 
authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy, distribute, 
disclose or take any action based on the information contained in this 
e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this message and material 
in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete 
this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics, Inc. (AppGeo).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20161008/1b63953c/attachment.htm>