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

Tue Sep 20 11:12:40 PDT 2016

If we are speaking about less than one vote per month, probably it is not so hard for at least the half of the people to vote.

I propose again formally:  quorum at 50% and majority for the acceptance of the motion.

Many thanks for everything.
Maria

Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
Date: 20/09/2016 11:51 (GMT+01:00)
To: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
Cc: conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Maria

There are very few votes in the CC, I am not sure of the exact number but I would guess that it is less than 10 per year.

The votes that I recall in the last year have been to appoint you and Till as members of the committee, to appoint me as chairman and the votes for the 2 stages of the 2017 RfP process. Perhaps someone else can correct me?

I am going to back out of this discussion until others to propose an alternative if they wish.
______
Steven

On 20 Sep 2016, at 10:32, Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it<mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>> wrote:

Dear Steven, as already said I don't agree on the voting mechanism and, as you have seen, there is not a consensus. I prefer that we before "solve" this question.
And sorry for asking you again, you who have been doing so much work for this Committee ( thanks a lot!!!): nobody answered me about how many motions were voted in the last year. I want to put myself in  Cameron's clothes ( literally translated from italian; ?probably in English you don't have this expression. In any case it is like "point of view") and understand pragmatically how much commitment was and is implied with respect to voting.
Thanks again and have a nice day
Maria

Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com<mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>>
Date: 19/09/2016 23:16 (GMT+01:00)
To: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it<mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>>, Venka <venka.osgeo at gmail.com<mailto:venka.osgeo at gmail.com>>
Cc: board at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:board at lists.osgeo.org>, conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>>, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com<mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Maria (and Venka)

My problem is that there are now 77 mails in this thread and I am not sure whether you and Venka voted against our vetoed. If you did veto, how do the substantial majority of the committee who voted in favour find a way to resolve?

To me this doesn't seem a very effective way of reaching a decision on a relatively minor procedural change which apparently is not very different to the procedures in some other committees.

Steven
07958 924 101

On 19 Sep 2016, at 21:57, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com<mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Maria,

What I've noticed as part of many OSGeo Committees is that after a while, some of the members become less active and less responsive, and that is ok.

A typical person's engagement is a little like a bell curve. They start off being respectful and quite during a learning phase, then get engaged and productive, often solving a particular "itch", then involvement tapers off as the person's interest are reprioritised. When that person becomes less active, they typically have excellent advise based on experience, worth listening too. However, because the project is not the person's primary focus they are not monitoring or voting on day-to-day project activities.

I'm suggesting our committee guidelines should allow for this engagement pattern, allowing old hands to provide advise when they have time and when practical.

On 20/09/2016 6:36 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:

Cameron, I understand your position. Anyway I think that more people participating to a discussion and taking decision is better than few. And, again, which is the problem in voting? Once you read a motion, if it is a simple one, it is easy to answer with 0 or +1 (it requires just a couple of seconds). If there are doubts, better to discuss it in such a way to find a larger consensus. Sorry, but I really don't see the problem.

Cheers.

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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160920/2e8bfa16/attachment-0001.html>