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

Wed Sep 21 04:58:45 PDT 2016

Hi Maria,

I think we need to ensure that any rules we put in place will be viable 
under both robust and weakened committees. A simple test is "Would these 
guidelines work within a flagging committee?" Eg: What if 8 out of 11 of 
the members have become inactive and are uncontactable? Would these 
guidelines still work?

Note also that committee members are volunteers and we can't "require" 
them to vote. We can "request" they vote, maybe even go as far as 
"expecting" them to vote.

I'll propose alternative text. As it stands, I think Steven's words are 
a better starting point to work from. (I'm aware he put a lot of time 
into it, and it went through a number of iterations of reviews, which is 
partly why I think it is well worded).

Suggested alternative text (which includes the 50% of members voting):

/Everyday topics will be decided upon by an open vote of all committee 
members in a clearly designated separate mail thread (+1/-1) over a 
minimum of two business days. We will aim to ensure at least 50% of 
members vote. Ideally we aim for consensus falling back on simple 
majority vote where necessary. The result will be clearly declared 
afterwards (or whatever is decided)./

On 21/09/2016 5:06 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:
> Below my first motion about voting motions
>
> *******************
>
> When a motion is presented, a quorum of 50% has to be reached in order 
> to consider valid the vote. Reached this threshold, the majority rule 
> is adopted.
> If there is no majority consensus, the members who didn't vote are 
> required to vote ( ar least one of them). In case of parity,  the 
> motion is discussed again until a convergence is found.
>
>
> If anyone has more comments or suggestions that they wish to make 
> please get them by 18.00 GMT on 22nd September. Voting the motion will 
> be open then and up to 25 September 18 pm.
>
> *****************
>
> Cheers
> Maria
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung device
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> Date: 20/09/2016 20:25 (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
>
> Thanks Maria
>
> I support a >50% must vote and the majority of the voters to 
> decide. Did you mean to not have a veto in CC voting?
>
> Can you redraft the motion and post the new motion as a new thread for 
> people to comment on with a cutoff when voting starts
> ______
> Steven
>
>
>> On 20 Sep 2016, at 19:12, Maria Antonia Brovelli 
>> <maria.brovelli at polimi.it <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>>
>> Date: 20/09/2016 11:51 (GMT+01:00)
>> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it 
>> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>>
>> Cc: conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org 
>> <mailto: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
>>>>> *SolKatzAward2015*
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> e-mail2:prorettrice at como.polimi.it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160921/2472d8dc/attachment-0001.html>