[Board] UN Meeting

[Venka]

Sanghee and all,

I am fine with autonomy for our committees and have
never been against it. We only need to state this clearly
in our Committee guidelines [1] which I choose to follow
in absence of any other guideline.

I agree with what Arnulf stated well in his mail
[2]. I reproduce parts of his e-mail [2] below
as he has phrased it better than I can.

"In that case we may want to change the general voting system to a 
majority vote as is typical for democratic systems. This is something 
for the board or maybe even the charter members to decide."

So, let us decide;

a) if majority vote will be 50% of the votes cast or X% as decided
    by the committee.
b) if a -1 vote can have different meanings for different committees
c) if committees is free to decide who could be a member, which
member could vote and which member is automatically retired.

And having taken the decision, let us update our committee
guidelines [1] and also have our committees to come up with their
own guidelines and put it on the wiki. This will make our
decision making process clear and transparent.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
[2] 
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-September/003944.html

Best

Venka

On 2016/10/12 18:10, Sanghee Shin wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> OSGeo is a community of communities and not a centralised
> organisation. I don’t believe Board could set up or apply any single
> clear governance rule for the whole committees. If there’s any
> weird(to some) governance procedure in any committees, that’s also
> the part of the committees’s long history that started before OSGeo.
> I support the autonomy of each committee which knows the real matter
> there.
>
> Cheers, 신상희 --- Shin, Sanghee Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
> http://www.gaia3d.com
>
>> 2016. 10. 11., 오후 3:26, Maria Antonia Brovelli
>> <maria.brovelli at polimi.it> 작성:
>>
>> For completeness, the main point under discussion was the one
>> related to voting procedures. "Everyday topics will be decided upon
>> by an open vote of all list participants in a clearly designated
>> separate mail thread (+1/-1) over a minimum of two business days
>> with a minimum participation of 3 votes. Ideally we aim for
>> consensus falling back on simple majority vote where necessary. The
>> result will be clearly declared afterwards (or whatever is
>> decided)." I believed (and still believe) that for important
>> decisions as those of the CC, we need more participation in voting,
>> i.e. a quorum of 50 %. As far as I have understood there is a
>> handful of such decisions a year. After a long discussion about
>> this topic, what was suggested by many volunteers (of the CC or not
>> of the CC) is that the governance has to be decided by the Board
>> and the CC decides only on the Conferences. Here we are: we will
>> discuss this topic in next Board meeting.
>>
>>
>> An for precision: when we made this discussion and I proposed to
>> put the decision of governance in the hand of the Board, I was not
>> in  the Board.
>>
>> Lovely day. 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
>> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it> e-mail2 <>:
>> prorettrice at como.polimi.it <mailto:prorettrice at como.polimi.it>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Da: Board <board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> per conto di Cameron
>> Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> Inviato: lunedì 10 ottobre 2016
>> 22.38 A: Anita Graser; board at lists.osgeo.org Oggetto: Re: [Board]
>> UN Meeting
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/2016 4:53 AM, Anita Graser wrote:
>>> The board micro-managed the conference com? (I'm asking because I
>>>  have not read the entire thread on the conf mailing list.) Any
>>> way, lets try not to repeat this process with the UNCom.
>> Hi Anita, I suggest read the thread embedded into my last email
>> I've just CCed to the board. It doesn't include everything, but
>> does include enough that you should get an idea.
>>
>> The quick summary: * After a conference committee face-to-face
>> meeting at FOSS4G, Steven took on an action to clarify conference
>> committee procedures. * He did this, put it out for comment,
>> actioned feedback, then put to the proposal to vote * He received
>> positive feedback from majority of the conference committee, and
>> two -1 vetos from Venka and Maria (who are also on the board). *
>> This resulted in 120+ emails, and a stalemate. * Maria has
>> suggested to solve the problem of voting rules by putting on the
>> board agenda. (Hence the implication of being micro-managed by the
>>  board)
>>
>> -- Cameron Shorter M +61 419 142 254
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>