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

Darrell Fuhriman darrell at garnix.org
Tue Sep 20 10:10:15 PDT 2016

It sounds like maybe this should be formalized and put in as a clarification.

(Sorry for missing most of this discussion, I’ve been traveling a bit lately and neglecting my personal email.)


> On Sep 19, 2016, at 07:32, David William Bitner <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. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160920/10630bb8/attachment.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list