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

Fri Sep 16 00:04:42 PDT 2016

final +1

pá 16. 9. 2016 v 2:31 odesílatel Maria Antonia Brovelli <
maria.brovelli at polimi.it> napsal:

> Dear Steven
> in general the vote is not considered valid if there is less than a given
> percentage of people voting. The members of every committee are committed
> in voting. I understand that all of us are very busy but I completely
> disagree on the option of voting or not voting as we please. The 0 vote
> exists as well, if we are neutral with respect to a decision, and then what
> is the reason of being part of a Committee if we don't show our opinion?
> Sorry, I'm a newcomer here and probably this is the reason why I don't
> understand this point. And really I don't want to bother but I want to
> better unterstand. When somebody freely accepts to be part of a Committee
> (we are not obliged), we accept at least to express our vote.
> Therefore I wonder why we don't request  that at least 9 up to 11 people
> vote ( if not the vote is not valid and we have to understand why the
> people didn't vote ) and then the majority wins.
> Thanks a lot for helping me in understanding.
> Have a lovely night.
> Maria
>
> Sent from my Samsung device
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> Date: 15/09/2016 18:13 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> Cc: OSGeo-Conf <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating
> Membership Policies and Process
>
> Maria
>
> I think the regional distribution will come about naturally with the
> rotation of FOSS4G chairs, perhaps we could try it out for a year and see
> how it works out once we have been through 2 elections (one if this motion
> is approved and another in a year’s time).
>
> I agree with you that we should aspire to have more women on the committee
> and also on the wider conference mail list. We don’t currently have
> reserved places for women on the Board, Charter membership or PSCs to my
> knowledge. Shouldn’t this topic be a subject for wider discussion across
> the community. In the meantime those voting in the 2016 election could
> factor gender into their choices.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "charter members should be allowed to have
> a say on how our conference will be conducted.”? The discussions on the
> Conference Mail List are open to anyone to participate and express their
> views. The committee members should consider all opinions expressed on the
> list before voting.
>
> Re a quorum for a vote. It is common for a committee to allow a vote to
> stand without all members voting, hence the suggestion of a quorum. I
> should point out that it is not uncommon for many committee members not to
> respond to a request for comment or a vote (perhaps silence signifies
> agreement).
>
> Once the vote on the motion has completed (and assuming it is accepted)
> you could propose an amendment to the quorum (perhaps 4 or 5) and perhaps a
> slightly longer notice period (say 3 or 4 working days)
>
> Best regards
> ______
> Steven
>
>
> On 15 Sep 2016, at 15:40, Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> wrote:
>
> Steven, first of all I want to thank you for your great work!
> Was really fantastic how you were able to synthesize the previous
> document.
> I have some relevant suggestions about some points of the discussion.
> The first is about the composition of the CC.
> It is ok of having 11 members. At that point I  propose:
>
> 3 rest of the world, 3 NA, 3 Europe
>
> and then 2 ladies, as we need to have more ladies in the decision rooms.
>
> The CC decisions need to be visible to the community and  charter members
> should be allowed to have a say on how our conference will be conducted.
>
> Then my last consideration is that we need at least 6 votes in accordance.
> 3 are definitely not enough. It is  not the majority.
>
>
> In my opinion these are relevant points  and we have to discuss them.
>
> Best regards!
> 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>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 Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> *Inviato:* giovedì 15 settembre 2016 15.48
> *A:* Massimiliano Cannata
> *Cc:* OSGeo-Conf
> *Oggetto:* Re: [OSGeo-Conf] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating
> Membership Policies and Process
>
> Maxi
>
> Thanks for your comments. We are now in the voting stage so I cannot
> change the motion. However I will try to respond briefly to your comments
> inline below
> ______
> Steven
>
>
> On 15 Sep 2016, at 11:25, Massimiliano Cannata <
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear Steven,
> I know i'm late but I hope my comments could be still considered to
> improve the "Membership Policies and Process" of the conference committee.
>
> In general I don't like the idea that only who has chaired a conference is
> entitled to take decision on the conference, is like saying that if you are
> not a developer you cannot be part of a project PSC even if you are a "rock
> expert in user interaction design" for example or "super power user"...
> often the minister of education is not a professor ;-)
>
> ** The role of the conference committee requires the expertise of past
> chairs. Only 5 of 11 places are allocated to past chairs, the other places
> are open to regional chairs or others with equivalent relevant experience
>
>
> here below some detailed comments inline..
>
>
>>
>> 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).
>>
>
> 3 votes out of 11 members and 2 days seems to me too restricted: in
> principle after a motion having 3 positive votes after two bussiness day
> can be enough to declare passed the motion
>
> ** we have to set a quorum and a time limit on votes - sometimes decisions
> are needed relatively quickly. Often only a subset of conference committee
> members or list participants actually respond. If the current motion is
> passed you could suggest an amendment to increase the quorum and time limit
>
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I would like to see the votes open to all participants (all the charter
> member that are part of the conference mailing list or are registered as
> interested), not only the remaining committee (otherwise you basically
> decide with who you want to work).
>
> ** The electorate for new committee members is the combination of the
> remaining committee members AND the Board.
>
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> What do mean by "In the event of a disagreement the committee chair will
> decide"? In case of tie the chair decide the winning (that anyway is
> decided by the board as the conference committee provides its indication
> and the board eventually ratify it).
>
> *** you have misunderstood - this is nothing to do with a tied vote. the
> chair decides whether there is a conflict of interest if agreement can’t be
> reached. See the revised version of the motion that was posted today
> following various people’s comments
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> So the "aim" is that the last 5 chairs of global FOSS4G should be members
> of the committee, but if you change 3 member a year, in about 3 years you
> have changed all the members: so this is not possible, mathematically
> speaking, unless you recruit both chair and vice-chair in the committee. so
> you'll have 6 new members in 3 years.
> At this point no more seats are left for regional conference chairs….
>
> ** I think this will work - The longest standing chair stands down, the
> latest is co-opted onto committee. 2 other longest standing members from
> the remaining 6 non-chair positions retire and 2 new people are elected
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Should or Shall, is it a rule or a guideline. What is the longest
> standing past FOSS4G chair does not stand down? Is he/she forced to resign
> or banned?
>
> ** My view would be that in our community a ‘should’ is sufficient, if you
> think a more formal approach is required you can propose an amendment to
> change to ‘shall’ after the vote
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Again, i don't like this self-election of a governing body ;-)
>
> *** see above
>
>
>
>> 6) Past committee members including those who have stood down due to
>> length of service may stand for re-election
>>
>
> Yes, but basically no seats will be available according to the rule of
> having half of the committee from latest events: oldest out, recent in so
> oldest no way to get in again ;-) unless others resign (apart from the
> three)
>
> *** see above
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Why the mechanism is not voted by all the committee members?
>
> *** we will probably continue to use an independent teller as we have in
> the past. If the board adopts loomio or some other system for votes we may
> decide to change to that. We need to get things done rather than spending a
> lot of time considering every list member’s idea of what voting software we
> should use.
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Massimiliano Cannata*
> Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
> Responsabile settore Geomatica
>
> Istituto scienze della Terra
>
> Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
> Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
> Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio
>
> Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14
> Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
> *www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160916/325b5e15/attachment-0001.html>