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

David William Bitner bitner at dbspatial.com
Mon Sep 19 07:32:43 PDT 2016

In general for a consensus +1/-1 system, -1 is considered a veto. This is
why I chose to vote +0 to indicate that I do not fully approve but did not
want to stop the vote. By the consensus system, the two -1 votes should act
as vetos. This committee has typically used +1/-1 but on a much more
straight vote system, perhaps in the future to avoid confusion we should
not use the +1/-1 nomenclature if this is not our intended outcome, but
rather a more parliamentary yes/no so as to avoid confusion between the
intention of both systems.

If we run our votes in a consensus manner, I would support a quorum rule
for a vote as having an affirmative +0/+1 vote from greater than 50% of
members with no dissenting votes. Under a parliamentary system, it would
make more sense to have a quorum of 50% and a motion passing with a
majority of those *who voted* supporting the vote.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan <venka.osgeo at gmail.com>

> I think quorum denotes the minimum members that
> must be present in a meeting for the proceedings
> to be valid. I my opinion, this should be more
> that 50% of the total number in the committee.
> The number of votes required for a motion to
> pass (this is different from quorum) would
> also be more than 50% of the total members
> in the committee.
> Does the members of CC have the power of veto?
> In my understanding -1 indicates a veto.
> Best
> Venka
> On 9/19/2016 6:07 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>> The voting results are:
>> +1 = 12
>> +0 = 1
>> -1 = 2
>> Not voted = 3
>> The motion is carried.
>> I know that the 2 -1 voters wanted to raise the quorum for a vote, I
>> support that. Would someone like to start a new thread and propose a higher
>> quorum for a vote.
>> I will start a new thread to discuss how we reduce our membership numbers
>> to the level that we have just approved.
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>> On 9 Sep 2016, at 15:41, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This mail is aimed at the current members of the Conference Committee
>>> (we do not have a private list).
>>> Only committee members can vote on these proposals, others on this list
>>> are welcome to comment and committee members will hopefully take note of
>>> those opinions when voting on the matters proposed.
>>> The current membership of the conference committee is listed at
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members <
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members>. We
>>> have 19 members after Dave McIlhagga resigned and after we co-opted Till
>>> Adams as the chair of FOSS4G2016. There is currently no policy or rule for
>>> eligibility nor for requiring a member to retire after a period of time.
>>> I have suggested in the past that we needed to have an open and fair
>>> process for selecting members and limiting the maximum number of committee
>>> members. At the face to face it was agreed that I should propose a policy.
>>> I propose the following:
>>> 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).
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>> 6) Past committee members including those who have stood down due to
>>> length of service may stand for re-election
>>> 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.
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

David William Bitner
dbSpatial LLC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160919/e5b242a9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list