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

Fri Sep 23 13:03:17 PDT 2016

Hi Maria and All,

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
<maria.brovelli at polimi.it> wrote:
> Dear Eli
>
> last year this Committee (we are speaking about the rules of this Committee)
> voted for less than 10 motions, which is a quite small number (less than one
> a month).
>
> A person who decides to be involved in a Committee accepts at least a
> minimum commitment (if not, what is the reason of staying in a Committee?).
> In my opinion voting less than one a month (in average) is not a so big
> effort.

I agree with that for myself and I personally participate in a high
percentage of the votes of which I'm eligible.  I don't agree with
applying this standard to other people.  Some people are less active
at times and still make productive contributions at other times, how
they manage their time is up to them.

Previously Paul made a call for everyone who didn't vote to resign,
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2012-April/001723.html
and I think that was generally poorly received.  Subsequently I think
Cameron did something like that with the intent of spurring people
into action (which worked).

I think that we need to be based on reality, not ideals.  Here are
some OSGeo projects with votes less than 50%.  To me these represent
continued success, not failure.

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-132
http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-89.html
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/44
https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc63_sparse_datasets_improvements

These projects have many more votes with greater than 50%
participation; maybe those were more interesting topics or better
timed with personal events in people's lives.

>
> And definitely it means that more people (the people of made them available
> for the Committee!!)
>
> are part of the decisions.
>

I'd rather the votes of 4 people who read three entire 50+ page
proposals than the votes of 8 people who skimmed the proposals.

>
> I propose to follow the Board Guideline, adding a 50 % quorum.

I'd like to propose great than or equal to 25%.  Is that agreeable to you?

50% is fine with me except to keep the committee functional, we need
to routinely raise motions to remove committee members who haven't
voted.  I think a better method is a lower quorum.  Both work but one
seems unfriendly.

What do other committee members think?  What is a reasonable and
obtainable quorum percentage?  Is removing members for lack of
participation a good idea?

I'm glad that we're clarifying our operating procedures on the committee.

Best regards, Eli

>
> 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: Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
> Inviato: venerdì 23 settembre 2016 19.10
> A: Cameron Shorter
> Cc: Darrell Fuhriman; Maria Antonia Brovelli;
> <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating
> Membership Policies and Process
>
> 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