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

Tue Sep 27 00:33:55 PDT 2016

I again propose to vote on 1)
We have been discussing for many days and sooner or later we have to take a decision, which will not be the same for all of us.

Please, shall we vote on

1) For the voting procedures of the Conference Committee the Board . Voting
procedure made milder with the introduction of a 50 % quorum is  adopted.

                                 ?

Best.
Maria

Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung

-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: till.adams at fossgis.de
Data: 27/09/2016 08:59 (GMT+01:00)
A: conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Hi Eli, @all,

indeed this is a different question and before I read your example of 4
people having read the full proposals instead of 8, that just skimmed
through it, I'd have said, that we for sure need a 50% quorum.

But, thinking about this for as while, I still think that 50% quorum is
needed: I do not want to say, that the CC is the "most important"
committee, but it cares for our most important flagship:
Our global conference. So if I want to be member of that committee,
everybody in and around OSGeo can expect, that I will do my job.
My opinion: If I will not do my job, you can remove me from the
committee, because I am useless and I just occupy a position, other
motivated people want to have but presumably can't.

I think the idea of Steven, to reduce the voting numbers to 11 helps us
to catch up with that problem. If we have 11 interested, motivated and
engaged people, with 1-2 coming in and 1-2 leaving every year, we should
be able to have at least more than 4 people reading the proposals and
more than 5 people, who vote.

Regards, Till

Am 2016-09-27 00:03, schrieb Eli Adam:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> 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,
>
> 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).
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160927/d9a8f472/attachment.html>