[OSGeo-Conf] Conference committee members
eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
Mon Mar 14 12:02:39 PDT 2016
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
> At the moment I can see 4 statements or votes in favour of Maxi being included on the conference committee (Venka, Eli, Cameron and Dave P) and one rains some reservations (Till).
My statements were general statements about committee membership. I
didn't know that there was a proper motion to add Maxi to the
If that is a motion, then, instead of general comments, I have
specific comments, questions, and discussion. Depending on the
outcome of that, I will vote.
I've only worked with you once on Conference Committee topics .
Overall, that seemed to be a negative experience for me. With this
topic as with most OSGeo topics, I took the OSGeo do-ocracy 
approach which is that the person who wants the information is
burdened to find it. I gave you some pointers of where to find the
information but never got any response from you. Instead of the OSGeo
do-ocracy approach, you seemed to make demands that others do this
work and when others didn't do the work, then you seemed
obstructionist . I even tried addressing this mode of work too 
and got no response. Do you believe in the OSGeo do-ocracy approach?
Do you think that we are volunteers who can choose to do or not do
things as we see fit? Do you think that any of us are obligated to
produce results on demand? How do you intend to operate on the
Conference Committee? Would you join the committee as a participant
and after establishing a track record of productive cooperation and
results, wait for an invitation as a member?
Based on the one time that we tried working together on Conference
Committee topics, it was a very negative experience for me. I am not
at all inclined to want to have more contributions of that sort on the
As with the previous times I brought this up, I do so with the
greatest spirit of cooperation and intent to further discussion. I
also feel obligated to raise this for the positive functioning of the
> No one else has expressed an opinion.
> Maxi, welcome to the Conference Committee. Would you update your details on the conference committee page of the wiki.
Please wait until we have a proper motion and determine the outcome.
> A couple of people have raised the topic of whether membership of the conference committee is synonymous with eligibility to vote in the FOSS4G selection process. I intend to add this to my list of topics for the conference committee to consider over the next couple of months.
Best regards, Eli
On some of the issues that you brought up (The Board and OSgeo taking
FOSS4G seriously), I think that I actually agree with you, however,
your tactics were such that I saw no viable way to collaborate with
>> On 9 Mar 2016, at 21:51, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It seems I am out of step with the majority of opinions expressed.
>> My opinion is that committee participation should be open to anyone
>> who shows up and competently and constructively does the needed work.
>> Substantial portions of this committee's work has been completed on
>> this email list by non-voting participants of the Conference
>> One can show up and do the work without being a voting member the
>> committee as well. Once you are doing the work, then someone can
>> motion for you to be added as a voting member. Presumably,
>> international FOSS4G chairs and maybe some regional chairs will have
>> interacted with the committee enough to have already established this
>> baseline of work and can skip straight to a motion at the conclusion
>> of the conference.
>>> Do we need a formal motion and vote or do we just invite Maxi to join the conference committee?
>> I prefer formal motions for any non-trivial decision with a subject
>> line like, "Motion: whatever" or even "MOTION: whatever" so that when
>> looking here, http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/ or
>> searching nabble for motion, I can find our history. Also, so our
>> history is clear, motions should end in definitive conclusion.
>>>> On 6 Mar 2016, at 12:42, Venkatesh Raghavan <venka.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2016/03/05 1:47, massimiliano cannata wrote:
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>> I would like to remind you that on the 21 December 2015 I asked what is the
>>>>> procedure to became a member of the conference committee because I would
>>>>> have liked to take part of the decisional processes and willing to help.
>>>> Yes, and I had voted +1  for welcoming Maxi as a new member
>>>> to the conference Committee.
>>>> Maxi has been active in organizing committee's at several
>>>> national, regional and internal FOSS4G conferences. Further
>>>> he is presently on the OSGeo Board too and would be an asset
>>>> to the conference committee
>>>>  https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2015-December/003518.html
>>>>> I'm still waiting for a clear answer, even if Steven stated that there is
>>>>> no way to enter in the commitee unless you have been invited from because
>>>>> you chair a FOSS4G event.
>>>>> Can you please clarify this?
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Conference_dev