[Board] [OSGeo-Conf] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Venkatesh Raghavan venka.osgeo at gmail.com
Mon Sep 19 21:41:39 PDT 2016 

Steve and All,

I think we should continue with the current decision making
process that has served us well over the last decade.

The committee guidelines [1] pointed out by Arnulf, treats
-1 as veto and that was what my vote was intended to be.

The reason for my -1 vote was because I felt the need
for clearly specify about quorum and voting in the motion
before is is put to vote and avoid having many amendments
later.

Steve had agreed that the quorum and voting requirements
could be changed. So, I suggest that a revised motion be
tabled again for the present committee to vote. This will
also give a chance another chance for people who have not
voted on the original motion to vote so that we can try
and have a broader consensus.

Also, David had suggested that the size of the committee could
be larger than the 11 proposed in the original motion and I
had agreed with this view. This may also be considered while
tabling the revised motion.

I think the CC has done a great job over the last decade
despite the increase in size of the committee over the years.
Adding 3-4 members to the CC could enhance/ensure geographical,
gender, experience and youth representation. OSGeo is an
expanding organization and we have device ways an means to arrive
at prudent decisions even when we are dealing with committees
with a larger membership. Curtailing size of committees may
not necessarily lead to speedier or better decision, I think.

Best

Venka


[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines

On 9/20/2016 6:16 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
> Maria (and Venka)
>
> My problem is that there are now 77 mails in this thread and I am not
> sure whether you and Venka voted against our vetoed. If you did veto,
> how do the substantial majority of the committee who voted in favour
> find a way to resolve?
>
> To me this doesn't seem a very effective way of reaching a decision
> on a relatively minor procedural change which apparently is not very
> different to the procedures in some other committees.
>
> Steven 07958 924 101
>
>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 21:57, Cameron Shorter
>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Maria,
>>
>>
>> What I've noticed as part of many OSGeo Committees is that after a
>> while, some of the members become less active and less responsive,
>> and that is ok.
>>
>> A typical person's engagement is a little like a bell curve. They
>> start off being respectful and quite during a learning phase, then
>> get engaged and productive, often solving a particular "itch", then
>> involvement tapers off as the person's interest are reprioritised.
>> When that person becomes less active, they typically have excellent
>> advise based on experience, worth listening too. However, because
>> the project is not the person's primary focus they are not
>> monitoring or voting on day-to-day project activities.
>>
>> I'm suggesting our committee guidelines should allow for this
>> engagement pattern, allowing old hands to provide advise when they
>> have time and when practical.
>>
>>> On 20/09/2016 6:36 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote: Cameron, I
>>> understand your position. Anyway I think that more people
>>> participating to a discussion and taking decision is better than
>>> few. And, again, which is the problem in voting? Once you read a
>>> motion, if it is a simple one, it is easy to answer with 0 or +1
>>> (it requires just a couple of seconds). If there are doubts,
>>> better to discuss it in such a way to find a larger consensus.
>>> Sorry, but I really don't see the problem.
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>>
>>> 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:
>>> 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 Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> Inviato:
>>> lunedì 19 settembre 2016 22.21 A: board at lists.osgeo.org;
>>> conference Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference
>>> Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
>>>
>>> It is worth noting that the vast majority of decisions made
>>> within a project typically are non-contentious and need not be
>>> slowed down by waiting for a majority vote.
>>>
>>> OSGeo-Live has developed similar guidelines to MapServer PSC to
>>> efficiently achieve rough consensus:
>>>
>>> """
>>>
>>> For most decisions, a motion is raised within one of the
>>> OSGeo-Live open forums (IRC, email list, etc) and those present
>>> vote and decide. Should there be contention in deciding, and
>>> after discussion at least one member is still strongly against
>>> the motion, by continuing to vote -1, the motion should be
>>> referred to the PSC.
>>>
>>> For motions presented to the PSC, a motion is considered passed
>>> when there are more PSC +1 votes than -1 votes, and either all
>>> PSC members have voted, or 4 days have passed. In the case of a
>>> tie, the PSC chair shall have 1.5 votes.
>>>
>>> """
>>>
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Management
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20/09/2016 3:41 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>>> BTW, as a complement of information, some committees such as
>>>> the MapServer PSC [1] and others who used the same template
>>>> have addressed the question of being unable to reach consensus
>>>> due to vetos as follows:
>>>>
>>>> """ If a proposal 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 eligible voters indicating +1
>>>> is sufficient to pass it. Note that this is a majority of all
>>>> committee members, not just those who actively vote. """
>>>>
>>>> Maybe our generic OSGeo committee guidelines [2] could be
>>>> revised to include such an override vote concept?
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://mapserver.org/fr/development/rfc/ms-rfc-23.html#detailed-process
>>>>
>>>>
[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-09-19 1:29 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Arnulf, I did not realise that a -1 could be a veto.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could Venka and Maria please confirm whether their -1 was
>>>>> intended to be a veto? If either of you intended your -1 to
>>>>> be a veto could you propose an alternative that would be
>>>>> acceptable to you and we will re-vote on an amended motion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also note that the guidelines say "As long as the motions
>>>>> collect at least two +1's, and no -1 vetos over a period of
>>>>> two business days, they will be considered passed, subject to
>>>>> the judgement of the chair…” Given the discussion about what
>>>>> would constitute an acceptable quorum, that may need to be
>>>>> changed across the whole organisation as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we are going to continue to allow a veto vote then I
>>>>> suggest that it should be declared as a veto rather than a -1
>>>>> so that there is clarity. Having a veto vote does suggest
>>>>> that a smaller committee size would help to reach decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the veto vote apply to a selection type vote e.g for a
>>>>> committee/board member or the choice of a FOSS4G?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be in favour of a switch to a majority voting system
>>>>> as the aspiration to achieve consensus will become more
>>>>> difficult as we grow and will certainly slow us down (I
>>>>> accept that may be a ‘good’ thing when taking momentous
>>>>> decisions).
>>>>>
>>>>> You learn something every day :)
>>>>>
>>>>> ______ Steven
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 17:58, Seven (aka Arnulf)
>>>>>> <seven at arnulf.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steven, so far we actually always counted a -1 as a veto.
>>>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this strong vote probably has to be communicated to the
>>>>>> voting members every now and then because new people come
>>>>>> in who don't know the power of this vote and may use it to
>>>>>> show their disagreement without knowing that they will
>>>>>> actually completely block the process. It is also important
>>>>>> to note that a -1 veto will only be valid if the voter
>>>>>> explains the rationale of his or her vote and also proposes
>>>>>> a viable alternative solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, maybe OSGeo as an organization is also moving
>>>>>> out of the phase where this type of consensus and
>>>>>> compromise-finding is a realistically achievable goal. 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I would prefer to stick with the -1 is-a-veto
>>>>>> voting system because it is the only way to make sure that
>>>>>> nobody feels left out. But as said, maybe we have grown too
>>>>>> big to be able to afford this leniency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have fun, Arnulf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19.09.2016 17:01, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>>>>>> I was not aware that the CC had a consensus voting system
>>>>>>> with -1 being a veto. I can’t recall any mention of a
>>>>>>> veto vote in any past CC decisions, it would make it very
>>>>>>> unlikely (if not impossible) to reach decisions in a
>>>>>>> timely manner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought we already had simple majority voting within
>>>>>>> the CC (what David described as a Parliamentary system)
>>>>>>> with +1 being in favour and -1 being against and +0 being
>>>>>>> an abstention and a majority decision. That was my
>>>>>>> intention for the motion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The discussion about a quorum was to determine the
>>>>>>> minimum number of CC members required to vote for a vote
>>>>>>> to be valid and of those voters a majority would decide
>>>>>>> the outcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the record, the modus operandi of the CC is to
>>>>>>> discuss topics in an open forum on the mailing list and
>>>>>>> after discussing to move to a vote. We have not in the
>>>>>>> past held regular meetings and I was not proposing to
>>>>>>> change that practice. The one exception was the CC
>>>>>>> meeting on IRC to discuss the proposals for the 2017
>>>>>>> FOSS4G selection before we moved to a vote, I have
>>>>>>> incorporated such a meeting in the RfP for 2018. ______
>>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 15:32, David William Bitner
>>>>>>>> <bitner at dbspatial.com <mailto:bitner at dbspatial.com>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In general for a consensus +1/-1 system, -1 is
>>>>>>>> considered a veto. This is why I chose to vote +0 to
>>>>>>>> indicate that I do not fully approve but did not want
>>>>>>>> to stop the vote. By the consensus system, the two -1
>>>>>>>> votes should act as vetos. This committee has typically
>>>>>>>> used +1/-1 but on a much more straight vote system,
>>>>>>>> perhaps in the future to avoid confusion we should not
>>>>>>>> use the +1/-1 nomenclature if this is not our intended
>>>>>>>> outcome, but rather a more parliamentary yes/no so as
>>>>>>>> to avoid confusion between the intention of both
>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we run our votes in a consensus manner, I would
>>>>>>>> support a quorum rule for a vote as having an
>>>>>>>> affirmative +0/+1 vote from greater than 50% of members
>>>>>>>> with no dissenting votes. Under a parliamentary
>>>>>>>> system, it would make more sense to have a quorum of
>>>>>>>> 50% and a motion passing with a majority of those /who
>>>>>>>> voted/ supporting the vote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
>>>>>>>> <venka.osgeo at gmail.com <mailto:venka.osgeo at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think quorum denotes the minimum members that must be
>>>>>>>> present in a meeting for the proceedings to be valid. I
>>>>>>>> my opinion, this should be more that 50% of the total
>>>>>>>> number in the committee.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The number of votes required for a motion to pass (this
>>>>>>>> is different from quorum) would also be more than 50%
>>>>>>>> of the total members in the committee.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the members of CC have the power of veto? In my
>>>>>>>> understanding -1 indicates a veto.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Venka
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2016 6:07 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The voting results are: +1 = 12 +0 = 1 -1 = 2 Not voted
>>>>>>>> = 3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The motion is carried.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know that the 2 -1 voters wanted to raise the quorum
>>>>>>>> for a vote, I support that. Would someone like to start
>>>>>>>> a new thread and propose a higher quorum for a vote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will start a new thread to discuss how we reduce our
>>>>>>>> membership numbers to the level that we have just
>>>>>>>> approved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers ______ Steven
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9 Sep 2016, at 15:41, Steven Feldman
>>>>>>>> <shfeldman at gmail.com <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This mail is aimed at the current members of the
>>>>>>>> Conference Committee (we do not have a private list).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only committee members can vote on these proposals,
>>>>>>>> others on this list are welcome to comment and
>>>>>>>> committee members will hopefully take note of those
>>>>>>>> opinions when voting on the matters proposed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The current membership of the conference committee is
>>>>>>>> listed at
>>>>>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
<https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members>
>>>>>>>> <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
<https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members>>.
>>>>>>>> We have 19 members after Dave McIlhagga resigned and
>>>>>>>> after we co-opted Till Adams as the chair of
>>>>>>>> FOSS4G2016. There is currently no policy or rule for
>>>>>>>> eligibility nor for requiring a member to retire after
>>>>>>>> a period of time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have suggested in the past that we needed to have an
>>>>>>>> open and fair process for selecting members and
>>>>>>>> limiting the maximum number of committee members. At
>>>>>>>> the face to face it was agreed that I should propose a
>>>>>>>> policy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I propose the following:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goals =====
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The conference committee have the responsibility to
>>>>>>>> run the selection process and voting for the global
>>>>>>>> FOSS4G, to vote on other proposals submitted to the
>>>>>>>> committee and to advise the board on other matters
>>>>>>>> relating to FOSS4G events.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Role of the Committee and the broader community on the
>>>>>>>> Conference_Dev list
>>>>>>>> ============================================================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
1) 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).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) Election of conference committee is by secret vote
>>>>>>>> and restricted to the remaining conference committee
>>>>>>>> members and board members who are not members of the
>>>>>>>> conference committee.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3) FOSS4G Selection - All Letters of Intent and
>>>>>>>> subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for
>>>>>>>> open comment by all participants. The selection of the
>>>>>>>> winning proposal is by secret vote of conference
>>>>>>>> committee members only. Any committee member who has a
>>>>>>>> potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw
>>>>>>>> from vote. In the event of a disagreement the committee
>>>>>>>> chair will decide.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Votes in 2 and 3 are to an online voting service or by
>>>>>>>> email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conference Committee membership policy and process
>>>>>>>> ==========================================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) The conference committee aims to retain up to 11
>>>>>>>> active members, preferably an odd number
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) The committee aims for half of these members to be
>>>>>>>> chairs (or vice chairs) of the most recent FOSS4G
>>>>>>>> global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G
>>>>>>>> event will automatically be invited to become a member
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3) The remaining membership is open, ideally
>>>>>>>> attracting people from earlier past chairs or active
>>>>>>>> LOC members from past Global, Regional FOSS4G or
>>>>>>>> related conferences
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4) Each year (after FOSS4G) the 3 committee members
>>>>>>>> should stand down: a) The longest standing past FOSS4G
>>>>>>>> chair b) The longest standing 2 committee members
>>>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5) Each year, prior to putting out the Global FOSS4G
>>>>>>>> RfP, the old committee should vote for their
>>>>>>>> replacement committee, using the above criteria as
>>>>>>>> voting guidelines. OSGeo Board members who are not on
>>>>>>>> the conference committee will also be invited to vote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 6) Past committee members including those who have
>>>>>>>> stood down due to length of service may stand for
>>>>>>>> re-election
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 7) Votes will be secret either using an online voting
>>>>>>>> system or by email to a designated teller who is not a
>>>>>>>> voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee
>>>>>>>>  chair.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would ask committee members (and list participants)
>>>>>>>> to comment on this proposal by 18.00 GMT Wednesday
>>>>>>>> 14th September. I will then call for a vote amongst
>>>>>>>> committee members only, the vote will close at 18.00
>>>>>>>> GMT on Sunday 18th September.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once the membership policy has been agreed we will
>>>>>>>> then need to apply the policy to the existing
>>>>>>>> membership. I suggest that we ask all current members
>>>>>>>> to confirm whether they wish to remain committee
>>>>>>>> members and then hold an election (if needed). To this
>>>>>>>> end it would be helpful if each committee member could
>>>>>>>> update their record on the wiki page to show when they
>>>>>>>> joined the conference committee (see my example).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The intention is that a 2016-7 committee of 11 will
>>>>>>>> have been selected before we vote on the LoI’s for
>>>>>>>> 2018, which is likely to be before the end of October.
>>>>>>>> ______ Steven
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
-- 
>>>>>>>> ************************************ David William
>>>>>>>> Bitner dbSpatial LLC 612-424-9932
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Board mailing
>>>>> list Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- Cameron Shorter M +61 419 142 254
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Conference_dev
>>> mailing list 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
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>

More information about the Board mailing list