[OSGeo-Conf] R: R: [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
Maria Antonia Brovelli
maria.brovelli at polimi.it
Thu Sep 29 23:43:26 PDT 2016
I'm also confused and demoralised as well. The main problem in my opinion is the inactivity of this commission (it could be also of other commissions, but I'm not part of other commissions). I'm surprised about how the main problem is to find an easy solution when the problem is why 9 people didn't find the time (= interest) of voting.
Even if volunteers and, in my opinion, more as volunteers we have to be reliable people committed with our community.
Unfortunately I'm not able to notice that attitude in the last voting.
If I have to tell you the truth, I'm, above all, sad and surprise that for the most of people this is a normal situation at which we have simply to put a patch.
Sorry for being so direct, obviously I'm not thinking of you, who have been doing so much for this Committee ( thanks again) or other people, but the situation is really and definitely different with respect of that I thought to find in an OSGeo Committee.
Good day to everybody.
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
Data: 30/09/2016 00:48 (GMT+01:00)
A: Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it>, Conference Dev <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
Oggetto: Re: R: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
I am confused. I think you mean that the amendment did not pass? Are you withdrawing your veto of the original motion (which had support from a substantial majority of the committee)?
What do you mean by "Therefore we will vote as in the past for the other items."? What other items? The only voting rules we had in the past were the Committee Guidelines, which were incorporated into the original motion. Can you clarify?
Venka could you advise whether your veto still stands following this vote on Maria's amendment?
This example of our decision making process cannot be appropriate for a voluntary community. Please let's bring this to a conclusion
On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:46, Maria Antonia Brovelli <maria.brovelli at polimi.it<mailto:maria.brovelli at polimi.it>> wrote:
The motion didn't pass.
Therefore we will vote as in the past for the other items.
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com<mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>>
Data: 29/09/2016 19:32 (GMT+01:00)
A: Conference Dev <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Amended MOTION (items 1-5): Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process
The voting for the amendment has closed.
The votes are:
+1 = 5 (Maria, Venka, David D, Darrel & Sanghee)
+0 = 1 (Cameron)
-1 = 1 (Steven but not a veto)
No vote received = 9 others
There is an irony to this result. If we apply the amended voting rules that were being voted upon the motion would have failed to reach a quorum. Had we used the Committee Guidelines that the amendment seeks to replace this amendment would have been passed.
Perhaps those proposing the amendment would like to suggest how we should proceed? I fear that we are in danger of succumbing to voter fatigue if we extend this vote and nag those who have less interest to vote (perhaps some committee members are mainly interested in helping with the annual selection of a FOSS4G than they are in the minutiae of committee policies and procedures).
In an endeavour to reach consensus and move on from this topic I suggest that we adopt the amendment (with an additional clause that allows the committee chair to use his discretion where the quorum has not been reached but there is a strong majority of those voting in favour and no veto) to avoid us getting stuck in this situation in the future.
I have redrafted the original motion to include the amendment that Maria proposed (I have included the full wording from the Board Voting section of the wiki amended as necessary). Could Maria and Venka confirm that they are in agreement with this course of action and with the amended text below.
Maria (and I believe Venka) had suggested 4 additional amendments to the original motion. Can you advise whether you wish to progress those amendments or whether you are content with the motion as currently amended?
I apologise to everyone on the list for the extent to which this topic has clogged your mail boxes, I had not expected the proposal to prompt so much comment.
The conference committee have the responsibility to run the selection process and voting for the global FOSS4G, to vote on other proposals submitted to the committee and to advise the board on other matters relating to FOSS4G events.
Role of the Committee and the broader community on the Conference_Dev list
1) Voting Procedure
1. Motions 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
2. each Committee member may vote “+1” to indicate support for a motion.
3. each Committee 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.
4. A vote of "-0" indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect. A "0" indicates no opinion, but has no effect. A "+0" indicate mild support, but has no effect.
5. A motion will be passed once the voting period has ended if a quorum of at least 50% of the committee members place a vote, and no vetoes are received (-1).
6. In the event that a quorum (50% of members) has not been reached, the chair may use its discretion to either extend the voting period or declare the motion passed if other than the quorum it has met the requirements of 5 above
7. If a motion is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote, which will be decided by a majority of voting members indicating +1 (i.e no veto) to pass it (subject to a minimum of 50% voting).
2) Election of the conference committee is by secret vote and restricted to the remaining conference committee members and board members who are not members of the conference committee.
3) FOSS4G Selection - All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list for open comment by all participants. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference committee members only. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to withdraw from vote. In the event of a disagreement the committee chair will decide.
Votes in 2 and 3 are to an online voting service or by email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair
Conference Committee membership policy and process
1) The conference committee aims to retain up to 11 active members, preferably an odd number
2) The committee aims for half of these members to be chairs (or vice chairs) of the most recent FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member
3) The remaining membership is open, ideally attracting people from earlier past chairs or active LOC members from past Global, Regional FOSS4G or related conferences
4) Each year (after FOSS4G) the 3 committee members should stand down:
a) The longest standing past FOSS4G chair
b) The longest standing 2 committee members remaining
5) Each year, prior to putting out the Global FOSS4G RfP, the old committee should vote for their replacement committee, using the above criteria as voting guidelines. OSGeo Board members who are not on the conference committee will also be invited to vote.
6) Past committee members including those who have stood down due to length of service may stand for re-election
7) Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will be selected by the committee chair.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conference_dev