[OSGeo-Conf] Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process

[Eli Adam]

Thanks Cameron.

I'd particularly like to thank you and praise adherence to the
process, specifically, the "clearly designated separate mail thread",
"minimum of one week ... to try and ensure at least 50%", and "clearly
declared afterwards" [1].  These aspects can reduce difficulty in the
decision process.

3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a
"clearly designated separate mail thread" over a minimum of 2 business
days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a "minimum
of one week" shall be allocated to "try and ensure at least 50%" voter
participation.
6. The result will be "clearly declared afterwards."

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Decisions

I'd also like to thank everyone who participated.  Reading, thinking,
and participating is the only way that the process will work.

As we continue to other topics and decisions, please reference and
look to the process for guidance on how to proceed.

Best regards, Eli


On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Conference committee,
>
> I declare this motion passed. After a one week voting period, and following
> up with personal emails to people who hadn't voted, we have all votes as
> either positive, or people stepped down, or no response.
>
> Steven Feldman +1
> Eli Adam +1
> Peter Batty +1
> David Bitner +1
> Maria Brovelli +1
> Jachym Cepicky +1
> Vasile Craciunescu +1
> David Fawcett +1
> Gavin Fleming +1
> Darrell Fuhriman +1
> Helena Mitasova 0 (retired from committee)
> Claude Philipona (didn't vote, but voted +1 for motion 1)
> Venkatesh Raghavan +1
> Paul Ramsey +1
> Cameron Shorter +1
> Sanghee Shin +1
> Till Adams +1
> Jeroen Ticheler 0 (retired from committee)
>
> The content from this text has been moved to:
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Housekeeping_Procedures
>
>
> On 30/1/17 7:00 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
> As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to
> approved revised text for conference committee text:
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>
> Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter
>
> Decisions
>
> Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes will be
> noted, but only conference committee member votes count toward decisions.
> Voting will use convention of:
>
> +1 : For
> +0: Mildly for
> 0: Indifferent
> -0: Mildly against
> -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a reason and
> alternative proposal.
>
> Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a clearly
> designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business days with a
> minimum participation of 3 votes.
> For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum of one
> week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter participation.
> The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to address
> all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where necessary.
> The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
> Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or use an
> email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.
>
> FOSS4G Selection
>
> All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the list
> for open comment by all.
> The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of conference
> committee members.
> The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference committee’s
> recommendation.
> Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is expected to
> withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is part of a bidding
> team, intends to become part of the LOC or is employed by a company playing
> an active part in a bid should exclude themselves from voting in the
> selection process. In the event of a disagreement regarding a potential
> conflict of interest the committee chair has the authority to make a
> decision.
>
> Membership
>
> To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced people,
> the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs (or vice
> chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most recent FOSS4G
> event will automatically be invited to become a member but still requires a
> motion and vote.
> The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from the 5
> most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
> The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally
> attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G or
> related conferences.
> Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership list
> shall be re-visited.
>
> Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on the
> committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of attempts to
> contact them, they shall be retired.
> Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto the
> conference committee.
> If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G chair/vice
> chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair positions shall be up for
> re-election.
> Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by the existing
> conference committee and board members who are not already members of the
> conference committee. Voters will vote Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate.
> Voters may select "Yes" for up to the number of positions available.
>
> 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.
>
> Votes for the motion
>
> Steven Feldman
> Eli Adam
> Peter Batty
> David Bitner
> Maria Brovelli
> Jachym Cepicky
> Vasile Craciunescu
> David Fawcett positive words
> Gavin Fleming
> Darrell Fuhriman
> Helena Mitasova
> Claude Philipona
> Venkatesh Raghavan
> Paul Ramsey
> Cameron Shorter
> Sanghee Shin
> Till Adams
> Jeroen Ticheler
>
>
>
>
> On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
> Conference committee,
>
> Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference
> committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka.
> After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].
>
> Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it
> is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.
>
> Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and
> any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate
> email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10
> Jan for people to comment).
>
> The changes include:
>
> * There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that
> global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.
>
> * Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try
> and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members
> to vote.
>
> * A number of other minor tweaks to the text.
>
> Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference
> committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the
> committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.
>
> Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the
> committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>
> [2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
>
>
> On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
>
> +1, I like the compromises!
>
>
> On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into
> the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but
> happy to see someone else take it on.
>
> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents
> (source in subversion)
>
>
> On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
>
> I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of
> "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not
> arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would
> respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the
> Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary,
> who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In
> the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first
> proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late
> submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before
> submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the
> "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and
> is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this:
> "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an
> intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the
> intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."
>
> Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
>
> MT
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev