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

Venkatesh Raghavan venka.osgeo at gmail.com
Fri Sep 16 06:39:07 PDT 2016 

Hi Dave,

Just to clarify that the opinion expressed by me
on this list is my own and in the capacity of
member of the Conference Committee.

It does not reflect the opinion of the Board.

Best

Venka

On 9/16/2016 9:32 PM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
> I think everyone needs to recognize there is a significant difference
> between the board structure (which is elected by the membership and
> has legal & fiduciary responsibilities etc… ) vs. the structure of
> its committees which ultimately have oversight from the board
> itself.
>
> I think committees should be given the flexibility to determine for
> themselves how they best operate within some very general
> guidelines.
>
> Does the board plan to impose a much more rigorous structure for all
> OSGeo committees? Personally, I think this is a rapid way to
> discourage volunteers from participating — people who are giving of
> their free time to do what they believe to be best for the
> organization and for the committee. Having said that — if that’s the
> will of the board, I think this is something you need to put in place
> for all committees - and not just cherry pick the Conference
> committee for this.
>
>
> The board has made it clear in the past that they want to have a
> conference committee that takes a strong pro-active role in managing
> the conference selection process and advising LOCs on their
> activities. If you are going to give the committee this much activity
> to be responsible, then it’s equally important that you give the
> committee the flexibility to run it’s affairs in a way that they feel
> would be most effective.
>
>
> Steven has done a commendable job here on pulling together a plan to
> make this group far more effective. Please give him the autonomy to
> continue this good work — and everyone can monitor how things proceed
> in the next year or two before deciding if it’s working or not.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 7:14 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
>>>>> e-mail2: prorettrice at como.polimi.it
>>>>> <mailto:prorettrice at como.polimi.it>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------ *Da:* Conference_dev
>>>>> <conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> <mailto:conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>> per conto di
>>>>> Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>> <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
>>>>> <mailto:massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch> *www.supsi.ch/ist
>>>>> <http://www.supsi.ch/ist> <http://www.supsi.ch/ist
>>>>> <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>>*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing listConference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttp
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <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
>>> <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
>
>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list