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

Wed Sep 21 05:50:11 PDT 2016

Hi Cameron and Steven,
as a suggestion why don't you take the well tested procedure adopted at
board level [1]?
(And herein after reported for shake of semplicity...)

Board Voting Procedure
<https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure#mw-head>
<https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure#p-search>
Purpose

This document explains the voting procedure for motions put forward to the
OSGeo Board of Directors.
Voting Process

   - Board voting occurs during monthly meetings, as well as a followup
   vote through email
   - each Board member may vote “+1” to indicate support for the motion.
   - each Board member may vote “-1” to veto a motion, but must provide
   clear reasoning and alternate approaches to resolving the problem within
   the two business days.
   - A vote of "-0" indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect. A "0"
   indicates no opinion. A "+0" indicate mild support, but has no effect.
   - A motion will be passed once all of the Board members place a vote,
   and no vetoes are received (-1).
   - If a motion is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all
   parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote, in which a
   majority of all Board members indicating +1 is required to pass it.

Maybe you could change "A motion will be passed once all of the Board
members place a vote" with "A motion will be passed once 50% of the Board
members place a vote"...

Best,
Maxi

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure

2016-09-21 13:58 GMT+02:00 Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>:

> 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> <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> Date: 20/09/2016 20:25 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> <maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> Cc: conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> <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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> Date: 19/09/2016 23:16 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it>, Venka <
> venka.osgeo at gmail.com>
> Cc: board at lists.osgeo.org, conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>,
> Cameron Shorter <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>
> 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
> e-mail2: prorettrice at como.polimi.it
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing listConference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>

-- 
-- 

Dr. Eng. Massimiliano Cannata
Responsabile Area Geomatica
Istituto Scienze della Terra
Scuola Universitaria Professionale della Svizzera Italiana
Via Trevano, c.p. 72
CH-6952 Canobbio-Lugano
Tel: +41 (0)58 666 62 14
Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160921/85a073ba/attachment-0001.html>