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

Fri Sep 16 01:51:54 PDT 2016

Many thanks to Steve for his work on the Motion for
Updating Membership Policies and Process.

I have seen that some members who have not yet voted on the
motion have expressed their opinion.

1) I would prefer that we spend a bit more time on framing
the Membership Policies and Process and avoid introducing
many amendments after the present motion is adopted.

2) I agree with David that there is more room in the committee
that the 11 suggested in the present motion.

3) Having people who are and wish to be active in a committee
step down just because they seem to have been around too long,
is not the best way of manage the membership of committees, especially
so in a volunteer organization, I feel.

4) I also think that the issue of quorum and majority should be decided
before the motion is voted. The quorum for a meeting should be more than 
50% of the members. (OSGeo Board meeting also requires 5 members out of 
9 at a meeting to satisfy the quorum).

5) The present quorum and majority suggested (3 votes out of 11 for
a motion to be pass/fail) needs to be modified.

best

Venka

On 2016/09/16 6:34, David William Bitner wrote:
> Thanks for all the thought that has gone into this. I have to say that I am
> a +0 on this proposal.
>
> I think that we could be better served by simply having terms to committee
> membership after which a member could stand for reelection with a target
> number of members. I would definitely like to have more room in the target
> than simply 11. Having only 11 seats with a target of half being appointed
> ex officio by having been past chairs (also what do we do in the case of
> co-chairs...) will definitely limit our abilities to try to add more
> diversity to the group.
>
> I am very for bringing in our past chairs, but I do not agree with bringing
> on a past chair automatically. I would like to see an affirmative vote for
> any new members. This can also help in the case where someone on a
> conference leadership team who might not have been the figurehead chair may
> have more motivation to actually roll up there sleeves and do the work of
> the committee.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Maria, Massimiliano,
>>
>> I agree with Stephen's pragmatism. What is proposed is better than before.
>>
>> It is probably not perfect, but we are unlikely to meet everyone's ideal
>> expectations, and lets put a "rough consensus" solution in place. We can
>> potentially revisit and tweak next year if volunteers are willing to step
>> up and change things.
>>
>> Based on proposed rules, it is time for me to retire from the conference
>> committee. (I was chair in foss4g 2009). I plan to continue offering my
>> services to help building the FOSS4G Handbook. I'm happy to do so whether
>> I'm re-elected to the committee or not.
>>
>> Cheers, Cameron
>>
>> On 16/09/2016 2:13 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> 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 listConference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> M +61 419 142 254
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> 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
>