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

David Fawcett david.fawcett at gmail.com
Mon Sep 12 08:57:05 PDT 2016


Thank you for developing this.  Over all, it looks great.  Jachym makes a
great point that we need a very clear criteria for determining conflict of


On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>

> Hi Steve,
> thank you for taking this action (we need this on every level of OSGeo, we
> lack on people with little bit free time).
> Some issues inline:
> pá 9. 9. 2016 v 16:41 odesílatel Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> napsal:
>> 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. 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.
> So far, it was Conference committee who gave "clue" to the Board and board
> did the final decision (after all, they are "sitting" on the money). I
> think, this works well. Board's voice was important only if Board would
> strongly disagree with Conference committee (never happen afaik), or when
> there was a tie (happend twice, AFAIK).
>> 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.
> Please define conflict of interest! It was FOSS4G 2014 vote (DC vs.
> Portland), where several members of LOC in DC were told, they might be in
> conflict of interest. Their relationship to LOC was only "supportive", they
> had no real relationship to any decision and in the matter of fact, they
> hoped to help the LOC and being connection betweeen LOC and OSGeo, if they
> are both - in Conference Committee and in LOC. This was (IMHO) one of
> biggest crises of OSGeo and it should be clearly stated for the future,
> that membership in LOC and Conference Committee is either to be seen as OK
> or conflicting.
> Today I think: there is no reason for having one person in both - LOC and
> Conf. comm.
>> 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
> ... or any other member of LOC, suggested by the chair of most recent
>> 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
>> Jachym
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160912/9121e0d9/attachment.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list