[OSGeo-Conf] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
Steven Feldman
shfeldman at gmail.com
Fri Sep 16 04:14:31 PDT 2016
Venka
We have had a period for comments after which the motion was amended. We are now in the midst of the voting with 11 or 12 people having voted. I suggest we proceed and consider any amendments subsequently
I am happy to amend the quorum in line with the board approach once the vote is finalised. With 11+ people already voted on this motion, we have surely exceeded any possible quorum?
Regards
Steven
+44 (0) 7958 924101
Sent from my iPhone
> On 16 Sep 2016, at 09:51, Venka <venka.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c0cca666/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list