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

[Steven Feldman]

Maxi

I think you have misunderstood the intention of the proposed voting arrangements for new committee members. Committee members are voted for by the remaining committee members AND the board to avoid the committee becoming self perpetuating

All members of the committee have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposal and now have the opportunity to vote. To date 11 people have voted, the vote closes at 18.00GMT on Sunday.

The majority of comments and responses to date have been favourable.

If any committee members wish to change their votes before the close of voting they are free to do so.


______
Steven


> On 16 Sep 2016, at 14:07, massimiliano cannata <massimiliano.cannata at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Dave,
> nice to hear you authoritative view.
> 
> I don't think that the board want to impose the structure to any committee.
> Personally, my words was made as participant to the conference committee list and as a member of our community.
> Since same rules are under voting, i expressed my opinion on these rules.
> 
> I think that having the committee self determining its members has the risk of closing the door to different, innovative or even revolutionary ideas or people.
> To me, this is not pushing innovation and openness.
> 
> Finally, if you have a voting committee, then I believe is essential to give all the members the chance to vote. Is not that other committees, just cut down a vote without waiting for a travelling person to go back home, read the mails and express its point of view, which ultimately could also be the most inspiring one...
> 
> These are my last two cents i can spend on this topic,
> 
> Maxi
> 
> 2016-09-16 14:32 GMT+02:00 Dave McIlhagga <dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com <mailto:dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com>>:
> 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 <mailto: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:
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160916/13d56f98/attachment.html>