[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Wed Sep 21 13:50:35 PDT 2016
Thanks Maxi for the suggestion. I like it.
I agree that the board voting processes are good. I'd actually prefer to
use them as written, without addition of a mention of "needing 50% of
members to vote".
My reasons:
1. It retains consistency between committees.
2. It will still work within a weakened committee (with many inactive
members)
Maria, Venka, others,
Do you have any objections to adopting board voting procedures?
On 22/09/2016 1:48 AM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
> This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>
> d.
>
>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 05:50, massimiliano cannata
>> <massimiliano.cannata at gmail.com
>> <mailto:massimiliano.cannata at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>
>>> Date: 20/09/2016 20:25 (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
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>> <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
>>>>>>> e-mail2:prorettrice at como.polimi.it
>>>>>>> <mailto:prorettrice at como.polimi.it>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> M +61 419 142 254
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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>
>>
>> --
>> -- 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
>> _______________________________________________ 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
--
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160922/562bcf70/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list