[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Eli Adam eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
Mon Sep 26 15:03:37 PDT 2016

Hi Maria and all,

Maybe it was missed in the length of the other thread.  I had some
specific question and cited specific examples.  What are your thoughts
on these items?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
<maria.brovelli at polimi.it> wrote:
> Here the amended motion.
> In my opinion it is the very time of voting  to be able to go ahead.
> It is better to vote before for  1) in such a way that we have a procedure
> and then vote for 2-5.
> Steven, I leave you to decide the time.
> Best.
> Maria
> 1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board Voting
> procedure  made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is adopted.

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

I think that we need to be based on reality, not ideals.  Here are
some OSGeo projects with votes less than 50% including the conference
committee making the most important decision it makes every year.  To
me these represent continued success, not failure.


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.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2) The number of members of the Conference Committee is equal to 17.

Previously Paul made a call for everyone who didn't vote to resign,
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).

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'd rather the votes of 4 people who read three entire 50+ page
proposals than the votes of 8 people who skimmed the proposals or of
those same 4 people after removing the non-voting other 4 yielding
100% voting.

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

Best regards, Eli

> 3) The retirement policy adopted by the Conference Committee is the same as
> that of the Board.
> Conference Committee  membership is for a 2 year term with half of the
> Conference Committee seats coming up for election each year.
> 4) The present Committee continues for an year and we hold election in 2017
> with the 9 seats  (9 of the longest serving members vacating their seats in
> Conference Committee) coming up for election.
> 5) Voting for Conference Committee members is restricted to the remaining
> Conference Committee members and Board members who are not members of the
> Conference Committee
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 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

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list