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

till.adams at fossgis.de till.adams at fossgis.de
Tue Oct 4 23:57:53 PDT 2016

Hi Steven,

I am very sorry to read, that you will step down as chair after the 
2018 selection process. We definitely will loose a very capable and 
socially inclusive person - I hope only as chair of CC.
I will not start to sway your decision, I think, that you thought a lot 
about that and I respect your move.

If nobody else stands in to push things along, I can jump in between 
mid of October and early November.

As said before, I totally support your motion towards a functional 
conference committee and the discussions we had in the past weeks were 
I totally agree with the idea having a smaller, but powerful CC, where 
everybody can contribute, but only a few active members can vote in the 
end with a crucial majority and number of votes.

@All, maybe I revise a little bit the above said, but in my eyes it's 
worth thinking about the decisioning process again in general: Having 
tons of "RE-"emails in my postbox where everybody argues and discusses 
for me seems to be not a good solution (I know, that I also 
contributed). Perhaps a frequently IRC chat (e.g.) helps to better this. 
Personally I lost the overview and missed the last motion in the 
plethora of emails.

Regards, Till

Am 2016-10-04 20:18, schrieb Steven Feldman:
> 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
>> [6]> 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 [1]> 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 [2]>
>>>> Data: 30/09/2016 00:48 (GMT+01:00)
>>>> A: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it [3]>,
>>>> Conference Dev <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org [4]>
>>>> 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 [5]> 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
>>> 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 [7]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> [2] mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com
> [3] mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> [4] mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> [5] mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> [6] mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com
> [7] mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list