[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Mon Oct 10 13:16:02 PDT 2016
Maria, board,
Thanks for looking for a solution to the paralyzing of conference
committee decision making process, and putting it on the board agenda.
Sorting out the issue of voting is important, but I feel is missing the
more important underlying problem:
"Why do we have enthusiastic volunteers leave OSGeo due to frustration?
Why are our committees shrinking in size and effectiveness?" Could these
question please be added to the board agenda.
I suggest that there has been a subtle cultural change over the last 5
years or so. Volunteer effectiveness has been reduced as we have been
less trusting and more controlling of our volunteers' initiatives,
making it harder for volunteers to "scratch an itch". This reduces the
fun of contributing.
If the OSGeo board is supportive, I'm open to be involved in a
discussion to help expand upon these ideas, and the practical steps to
put them in place.
Of note, if you read between the lines in the email thread below, a lot
of the ideas have already been raised from respected community members.
Warm regards, Cameron
On 10/10/2016 6:54 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:
>
> Of course I'm not enthusiastic, I'm not enthusiastic at all. In fact,
> as I wrote when I was not part of the Board and a as logic consequence
> of the situation (the message from many people was: the CC decides
> about conferences, the Board about governance), we asked the Board to
> discuss and to decide about the governance. And in order not to slow
> down the activities, we (now I'm part of the Board) have a Board
> meeting very soon.
>
> Therefore, as you can see, I'm promptly moving toward searching a
> solution.
>
> Thanks a lot for your detailed suggestions and comments (all of you).
>
> Have a lovely week.
>
> 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
>
> *SolKatzAward2015*
>
> 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 Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>
> *Inviato:* domenica 9 ottobre 2016 16.59
> *A:* conference
> *Oggetto:* Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5):
> Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
> If most members of this committee despair at this fiasco, I can only
> imagine the enthusiasm with which the board will take it up. Except
> maybe they'll be very enthusiastic, since it is the board members on
> this committee that have stuck sticks in the spokes of Steven's motion.
>
> I see recent conference chairs and prospective chairs in support of
> Steven's changes, and Board members opposed. I supported them myself,
> even though that meant superannuating myself from the committee. Well
> and good: it's been a decade since my conference, and a smaller
> committee might actually be able to move a little more nimbly and do
> more than just winnow a couple RPF responses every 12 months.
>
> Venka and Maria, you seem surprisingly willing to destroy the village
> in order to save it. I dunno what to think.
>
> ATB,
> P
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
> <venka.osgeo at gmail.com <mailto:venka.osgeo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Firstly, the amended motion [1] on quorum can be re-proposed
> since it did not pass due to lack of sufficient votes.
>
> I had voted on the amended [1] and original [2] motions
> taking into consideration the present guidelines [3]
> which has been in use by our foundation for the last
> 10 years.
>
> I standby my -1 vote (which represents a veto as per our current
> guidelines [3]) for the original motion [2]. I also stand by my
> +1 vote for the amended motion [1] on quorum requirement.
>
> I think that the contents of the original motion [2] calls for
> consultation with the board since it reflects a major change in
> the existing committee guidelines [3] which it is not a matter to
> be discussed and decided on the conference mailing list alone.
>
> Also, I think that once the voting on the motions are completed and
> the results are declared, it is inappropriate to ask members to change
> their votes.
>
> As mentioned in the beginning of this mail, the amended motion [1]
> could
> be re-tabled with the appropriate voting deadline (1 week, 10 days?).
>
> [1]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-September/004003.html
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-September/004003.html>
> [2]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-September/003859.html
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-September/003859.html>
> [3] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
> <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines>
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
>
>
>
> On 10/9/2016 7:49 PM, till.adams at fossgis.de
> <mailto:till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> following Peter, Steven and Cameron, I'd propose that Venka
> and Maria
> make alternative proposals on which we can go on to vote within a
> certain period of time (don't mind, if 5 days or 10 days). If
> they do
> not deliver an alternative proposal, I'd encourage Steven (who
> is still
> our chair and also put this motion initially on the board) to
> re-proposes the originally proposal for a majority vote.
>
> With this we at least continue our work and come to a solution.
> Everything else would be just a preservation of a not cleared
> condition
> and I assume (and hope), that this is not what Venka and Maria
> intended.
>
> Till
>
>
>
> As Peter said, we can
>
> Am 2016-10-09 02:45, schrieb Michael Terner:
>
> Please count another STRONG +1 to Camerons 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 thats fine. Would love to see an
> outcome where
> Stevens proposals can come into some form of being, and
> for Stevens
> hand to return to the tiller...
>
> Respectfully, MT
>
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Peter Batty
> <peter at ebatty.com <mailto:peter at ebatty.com> [37]>
> wrote:
>
> +1 to Camerons email.
>
> For what its 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
> <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure> [33]
>
> 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 dont especially
> want to
> re-propose it myself as I dont 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
> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com> [34]> 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
> Stephens initial drive, motivation and enthusiasm
> changing to his
> submitting his resignation.
>
> Stephens 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 Pinks "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
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc> [29]
>
> Warm regards, Cameron
>
> On 8/10/2016 1:33 AM, Even Rouault wrote:
>
> Maria,
>
> Im 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 Im concerned, Im 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-September/003987.html
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-September/003987.html>
>
> [28]
> several examples of different projects with
> low vote
> participation in some
> votes. That is a bit sad of course, wed like
> to have 100%
> participation, but
> thats the reality.
>
> Best,
>
> Even
>
> Dear Steven,
>
> I dont withdraw my vetoe. As said, Ill
> 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
> <tel:%2B39-031-3327336> [1] - Mob.
> +39-328-0023867 <tel:%2B39-328-0023867>
> [2] - fax.
> +39-031-3327321 <tel:%2B39-031-3327321> [3]
> e-mail1: <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it> [4]>
> maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it> [5]
> e-mail2: prorettrice at como.polimi.it
> <mailto:prorettrice at como.polimi.it> [6]
>
> ________________________________
> Da: Conference_dev
> <conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
> [7]> per conto di
> Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com
> <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com> [8]> 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 LoIs,
> 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>
> [9]<mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com
> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com> [10]>>
> wrote:
>
> Steven, others,
>
> The conference committee is ineffective if
> it cant make
> efficient
> decisions. Usually, any decision is better
> than no decision,
> and is
> certainly the case for this motion. Im 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>
> [11]<mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it> [12]>>
> wrote:
>
> Steven
> Im 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 Im not part of other
> commissions). Im
> surprised about
> how the main problem is to find an easy
> solution when the
> problem is why 9
> people didnt 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 Im not able to
> notice that
> attitude in the last voting. If I have to
> tell you the truth,
> Im, 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 Im 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>
> [13]<mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com
> <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com> [14]>>
> Data: 30/09/2016 00:48 (GMT+01:00)
> A: Maria Antonia Brovelli
> <maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> [15]<mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it> [16]>>,
> Conference
> Dev
> <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> [17]<mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org> [18]>>
> 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 Marias amendment?
>
> This example of our decision making
> process cannot be
> appropriate for a
> voluntary community. Please lets 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>
> [19]<mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it> [20]>>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Steven
> The motion didnt 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>
> [21]<mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org> [22]>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
> [23]
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254 [24]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> [25]<mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org> [26]>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
> [27]
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254 [30]
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org> [31]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board> [32]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org> [35]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board> [36]
>
>
> --
>
> MICHAEL TERNER
> _Executive Vice President_
> 617-447-2468 <tel:617-447-2468> Direct | 617-447-2400
> <tel:617-447-2400> Main
> Applied Geographics, Inc.
> 24 School Street, Suite 500
> Boston, MA 02108
> www.AppGeo.com <http://www.AppGeo.com> [38]
>
> _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).
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://webmail.fossgis.de/tel:%2B39-031-3327336
> <http://webmail.fossgis.de/tel:%2B39-031-3327336>
> [2] http://webmail.fossgis.de/tel:%2B39-328-0023867
> <http://webmail.fossgis.de/tel:%2B39-328-0023867>
> [3] http://webmail.fossgis.de/tel:%2B39-031-3327321
> <http://webmail.fossgis.de/tel:%2B39-031-3327321>
> [4] mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> [5] mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> [6] mailto:prorettrice at como.polimi.it
> <mailto:prorettrice at como.polimi.it>
> [7] mailto:conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
> [8] mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>
> [9] mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com
> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
> [10] mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com
> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
> [11] mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> [12] mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> [13] mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>
> [14] mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>
> [15] mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> [16] mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> [17] mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> [18] mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> [19] mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> [20] mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it
> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> [21] mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> [22] mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> [23]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
> [24] http://webmail.fossgis.de/tel:%2B61%20419%20142%20254
> <http://webmail.fossgis.de/tel:%2B61%20419%20142%20254>
> [25] mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> [26] mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> [27]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
> [28]
>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-September/003987.html
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-September/003987.html>
>
> [29] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc>
> [30] http://webmail.fossgis.de/tel:%2B61%20419%20142%20254
> <http://webmail.fossgis.de/tel:%2B61%20419%20142%20254>
> [31] mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
> [32] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board>
> [33] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure
> <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure>
> [34] mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com
> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
> [35] mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
> [36] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board>
> [37] mailto:peter at ebatty.com <mailto:peter at ebatty.com>
> [38] http://www.AppGeo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20161011/8b12b3c6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list