[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Fri Sep 23 14:51:13 PDT 2016
Hi Maria,
I feel the level of red-tape introduced by introducing a quota to voting
puts excessive work on committee chairs and a better result is achieved
by trusting the judgment of our chairs.
People join committees, are active for a while, and typically then
become less active.
So what should a committee do when it doesn't reach a quorum for votes?
We could encourage less active members to leave, but I think this is
counter-productive. Karl Fogel, author of "Producing Open Source"
suggests keeping old wise people as their judgement is usually worth
listening too, even if only occasionally. [1] Also, it is often socially
divisional negotiating the process of removing a person from a
committee, and if adopted should be backed by a well considered OSGeo
process. OSGeo doesn't such a process.
* If a vote is important then a chair-person can try chasing people
individually to vote. Chasing people is time consuming, typically
involving sending individual emails to everyone on the committee.
* After a while, chairs (and members) learn contributor activity levels
and interests. Some members ignore voting on sensitive issues. Others
vote based on trusting the judgement of others. Some have become less
engaged, but it nice to hear their opinion when provided.
My advise is that we trust our committee chairs to determine whether
sufficient members of their committee have voted. Lets not make it
harder for them by forcing them to chase an illusive quorum to get a
motion through.
If the board finds that a committee has become self serving and contrary
to the interests of OSGeo, the board still has the right to step in.
(This hasn't happened yet in OSGeo's 10 year history).
If we do introduce a quorum requirement to committees, we also need to
address the question of what to do when a quorum isn't reached.
Warm regards, Cameron
[1] http://producingoss.com/en/committers.html#dormant-committers
On 24/09/2016 3:22 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli 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.
>
> And definitely it means that more people (the people of made them
> available for the Committee!!)
>
> are part of the decisions.
>
>
> I propose to follow the Board Guideline, adding a 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
>
> 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
--
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160924/e6ce8dfa/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list