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

Fri Sep 23 10:10:27 PDT 2016

I think that the Board guidelines are generally very good and we
should adopt something very similar to that (I think that the existing
committee guidelines are already similar.).

The part I don't like is the 100% vote participation.  I also don't
like the 50% vote since most committees, PSC, and other bodies I've
participated on or observed don't regularly meet that percentage.

I like the Board procedures [1] augmented by something like the
general committee guidelines [2] which only requires very low
participation.

"As long as the motions collect at least two +1's, and no -1 vetos
over a period of two business days, they will be considered passed,
subject to the judgement of the chair (who might choose to defer a
motion to a meeting for instance)."

People who have run votes for the conference committee have required
incredible effort to get participation.

Best regards, Eli

[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Voting_Procedure
[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:12 AM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
> 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
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Da: Conference_dev <conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> per conto di
> Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
> Inviato: mercoledì 21 settembre 2016 22.50
> A: Darrell Fuhriman; massimiliano cannata
> Cc: <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> 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>:
>>
>> 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> 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 list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> M +61 419 142 254
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Conference_dev mailing
>> list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttp://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.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
>
> --
> 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