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

[Seven (aka Arnulf)]

Thanks Dave, well said.

Arnulf

On 16.09.2016 14:32, 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
>> <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:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *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>*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing listConference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttp
>>>>> <mailto:listConference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttp>://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>> <http://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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>