[OSGeo-Conf] Motion: Membership in CC

[Steven Feldman]

I would like to publicly oppose the proposal (oppose not veto). I wish to stress that my opposition to the proposal does not in any way signify an objection to Gerard per se, it is a concern about the membership criteria of the Conference Committee.

The Conference Committee (as opposed to the mailing list which is open to everyone) has, until recently, had only one task - to run the process to select the team to run the Global FOSS4G event. The open list can review the LoI’s and ask questions of the bidders but voting is restricted to CC members. In the last 2 years the CC has also been entrusted with running the FOSS4G Travel Grant Programme.

I believe that the CC has grown too large and that without a process to retire members (I believe we have a mechanism in the current terms of reference which could/should be activated before this motion is considered) we are in danger of failing to have a quorum for decisions.

In the 2019 selection process last year we failed to reach a quorum of  >50% in the final vote and the CRO had to request the chair of CC to encourage additional members to vote. CC is now larger than 2017 and there is a proposal to vote on accepting another member, theoretically anyone could propose further regional chairs or any other person to be appointed to CC, this is not sustainable in my opinion. Membership of CC should not be an honour that is bestowed upon former chairs of regional events (Charter Membership is our way of honouring people who have made a strong contribution to our community). 

CC’s principal task is running the global FOSS4G selection, I believe that the membership should have experience of running a global FOSS4G. This does not prevent other interested people from expressing opinions or asking questions on the list it just reserves the most important financial decision that OSGeo makes each year (OSGeo offer financial guarantees and loans of up to $80k to a FOSS4G LOC) to people who have experience of running previous events with budgets of ca $500k. The invitation of past chairs of global FOSS4G to join the CC ensures that we retain our communal knowledge, experience and judgement.

I previously proposed that we reduce the size of CC to 11 members and have a mandatory retirement and re-election process. That proposal gained a lot of support but was vetoed, I will not propose it again but I do ask CC members to suggest an alternative way forward that will not lead to an ever growing CC, a dilution of expertise and further potential inquorate votes.

BTW if others want to be more involved in CC activities, the TGP team struggled to get volunteers to run the Dar TGP or to assist on regional events. We need volunteers, the TGP work is quite time consuming and the burden currently falls on 2 or 3 people. You do not need to be a member of CC to participate in the TGP.
______
Steven


> On 12 Sep 2018, at 07:59, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear ConfComm,
> 
> last topic today: Membership in CC.
> 
> Past chairs of a global conference are automatically asked to become
> members of CC. If they agree, they are proposed as new members to CC and
> voted. If there are proposals for other, non-former-global chair people
> as new members, please propose them on the list after the global
> conference is over and prior to the RfP for the next FOSS4G (maybe this
> year we make an exception and extend this phase until the end of September).
> 
> There has also been some discussion on the election procedure. I would
> propose the following procedure:
> 
> We are currently 19 members. If a candidate receives at least 10 "+1"
> votes on the mailing list within 7 days after being proposed, the
> candidate will be accepted as a new member. With this procedure you can
> actively vote *for* a candidate, but you don't have to actively vote
> *against* someone.  Of course, the right of a veto ("-1") is retained,
> but, as always, a "-1" must be justified and if possible, an alternative
> proposal must be given. If this does not happen, the veto will be ignored.
> 
> Regarding the election procedure, I have the following proposal: If you
> want to vote publicly, you can do so just by sending an email to this
> list. Alternatively, in case of a proposed candidate, I will name 2
> election assistants, to whom a vote can be sent by e-mail. At the end of
> the election period we receive only the number of the "+1" votes without
> names of the voters from them.
> 
> Vetoes must be publicly justified.
> 
> 
> Please vote on ths proposal until 19th of September, if we agree in this
> procedure, I can do the changes in the WIKI [1].
> 
> 
> Till
> 
> 
> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev