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

Seven (aka Arnulf) seven at arnulf.us
Mon Sep 19 09:58:01 PDT 2016

so far we actually always counted a -1 as a veto.

But this strong vote probably has to be communicated to the voting
members every now and then because new people come in who don't know the
power of this vote and may use it to show their disagreement without
knowing that they will actually completely block the process. It is also
important to note that a -1 veto will only be valid if the voter
explains the rationale of his or her vote and also proposes a viable
alternative solution.

That said, maybe OSGeo as an organization is also moving out of the
phase where this type of consensus and compromise-finding is a
realistically achievable goal. In that case we may want to change the
general voting system to a majority vote as is typical for democratic
systems. This is something for the board or maybe even the charter
members to decide.

Personally I would prefer to stick with the -1 is-a-veto voting system
because it is the only way to make sure that nobody feels left out. But
as said, maybe we have grown too big to be able to afford this leniency.

Have fun,

On 19.09.2016 17:01, Steven Feldman wrote:
> I was not aware that the CC had a consensus voting system with -1 being
> a veto. I can’t recall any mention of a veto vote in any past CC
> decisions, it would make it very unlikely (if not impossible) to reach
> decisions in a timely manner.
> I thought we already had simple majority voting within the CC (what
> David described as a Parliamentary system) with +1 being in favour and
> -1 being against and +0 being an abstention and a majority decision.
> That was my intention for the motion.
> The discussion about a quorum was to determine the minimum number of CC
> members required to vote for a vote to be valid and of those voters a
> majority would decide the outcome.
> For the record, the modus operandi of the CC is to discuss topics in an
> open forum on the mailing list and after discussing to move to a vote.
> We have not in the past held regular meetings and I was not proposing to
> change that practice. The one exception was the CC meeting on IRC to
> discuss the proposals for the 2017 FOSS4G selection before we moved to a
> vote, I have incorporated such a meeting in the RfP for 2018.
> ______
> Steven
>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 15:32, David William Bitner <bitner at dbspatial.com
>> <mailto:bitner at dbspatial.com>> wrote:
>> 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 <mailto:venka.osgeo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     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 <mailto: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>
>>             <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
>>         <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>
>> -- 
>> ************************************
>> David William Bitner
>> dbSpatial LLC
>> 612-424-9932
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list