[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Thu Sep 22 04:12:23 PDT 2016
Thanks Maria for pointing out the 100% quorum from the board processes.
I'm supportive of your suggestion for using the board voting procedures
with the 50% quorum amendment.
Warm regards, Cameron
On 22/09/2016 9:05 AM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
> Oh yah, I guess I overlooked that bit.
>
> I agree that 100% for a quorum is unnecessary and 50% seems reasonable
> to me.
>
> d.
>
>
>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 14:38, Maria Antonia Brovelli
>> <maria.brovelli at polimi.it <mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>> wrote:
>>
>> This requires that ALL members vote, i.e. quorum = 100 %. A
>> minimum 50 % quorum is milder and takes into account that for some
>> reason some of the members don't have the possibility of voting. I
>> prefer this second option.
>> Therefore I'm positive with the proposal adding the 50 % quorum.
>> Best.
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Da:*Conference_dev <conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
>> <mailto:conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>> per conto di Cameron
>> Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>>
>> *Inviato:*mercoledì 21 settembre 2016 22.50
>> *A:*Darrell Fuhriman; massimiliano cannata
>> *Cc:*<conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>>
>> *Oggetto:*Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee -
>> Updating Membership Policies and Process
>> 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 listConference_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 listConference_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
--
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160922/65af6d13/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list