[OSGeo-Conf] R: [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
Maria Antonia Brovelli
maria.brovelli at polimi.it
Sun Sep 25 00:52:20 PDT 2016
About voting
+1 adopting board procedure with 50 % quorum
About the new points
a) +1
b) +1
0 voting in 2016 or 2017.
Lovely Sunday
Maria
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Venkatesh Raghavan <venka.osgeo at gmail.com>
Data: 25/09/2016 04:53 (GMT+01:00)
A: "<conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>" <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
Cameron and all,
Sorry for the delay in my response.
My comments inline.
On 9/22/2016 5:50 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> 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".
I agree to that.
>
> 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?
I am all for adopting board voting procedures and quorum requirements
(Section 4.5 of our bylaws [1]). I think the board meeting procedures
has served us well and can be adopted for our committees too.
I would like to request consideration for following points when
the revised motion is tabled.
a) The current member list [1] shows 16 members. I would suggest
that the CC starts off with the current members and we add one
new member by election to have an odd number of committee members.
Hence, the committee could have 17 members which is 5% of our
charter membership (17/312). I think having 5% of our charter
members to decide about one of our most important activities
(FOSS4G conference and events) will not only allow us to
have broad diversity in the CC but the induction of one
new member (to add to the present 16) would also afford
an opportunity for some who resigned from the CC in the
midst of this discussion to return and serve the board.
17 members in the CC would mean quorum on 9 members for
a meeting to be valid.
b) Regarding retirement policy, we could adopt same as that
of the board [2]. CC membership could be for a 2 year term
with half of the CC seats coming up for election each year.
We could either consider having an election in 2016 after
the motion on policies and Process is passed. Or, allow
the present committee to continue for an year and hold
election in 2017 with the 9 seats (9 of the longest
serving members vacating their seats in CC) coming up for
election.
Voting for CC members could restricted to the remaining conference
committee members and board members who are not members of the
conference committee (same as what was outlined in the original
motion tabled by Steve).
Best
Venka
[1] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Election_Procedure
>
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20160925/15377a76/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list