<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Apologies for missing the vote period. I was 'off line' over the weekend, please don't view my absence as a lack of interest or enthusiasm for the Conference Committee. <br><br></div>I agree with David Bitner's comments on the size of the committee. I believe that if there are proposals to modify the guidelines, we should allow and vote on amendment proposals before we get into an active conference selection process. <br><br></div>David.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Steven Feldman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" target="_blank">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><div style="direction:inherit">Maria (and Venka)</div><div style="direction:inherit"><br></div><div style="direction:inherit">My problem is that there are now 77 mails in this thread and I am not sure whether you and Venka voted against our vetoed. If you did veto, how do the substantial majority of the committee who voted in favour find a way to resolve?</div><div style="direction:inherit"><br></div><div style="direction:inherit">To me this doesn't seem a very effective way of reaching a decision on a relatively minor procedural change which apparently is not very different to the procedures in some other committees.</div><br>Steven<div>07958 924 101</div></div><div><div class="h5"><div><br>On 19 Sep 2016, at 21:57, Cameron Shorter <<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" target="_blank">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<p>Hi Maria,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>What I've noticed as part of many OSGeo Committees is that after
a while, some of the members become less active and less
responsive, and that is ok.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>A typical person's engagement is a little like a bell curve. They
start off being respectful and quite during a learning phase, then
get engaged and productive, often solving a particular "itch",
then involvement tapers off as the person's interest are
reprioritised. When that person becomes less active, they
typically have excellent advise based on experience, worth
listening too. However, because the project is not the person's
primary focus they are not monitoring or voting on day-to-day
project activities.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I'm suggesting our committee guidelines should allow for this
engagement pattern, allowing old hands to provide advise when they
have time and when practical.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div>On 20/09/2016 6:36 AM, Maria Antonia
Brovelli wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p>Cameron, I understand your position. Anyway I think that more
people participating to a discussion and taking decision is
better than few. And, again, which is the problem in voting?
Once you read a motion, if it is a simple one, it is easy to
answer with 0 or +1 (it requires just a couple of seconds). If
there are doubts, better to discuss it in such a way to find a
larger consensus. Sorry, but I really don't see the problem.</p>
<p>Cheers.</p>
<p>Maria</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<div name="divtagdefaultwrapper">
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3"><span style="background-color:rgb(204,153,255)"><font color="000000"><b><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">------------------------------<wbr>----------------------<br>
</span></b></font></span></font>Prof. Maria
Antonia Brovelli<br>
<div><font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3">Vice
Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor<br>
Politecnico di Milano</font></div>
<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3"><span style="background-color:rgb(204,153,255)"><font color="000000"><b><span style="background-color:rgb(0,255,255)"></span></b></font></span></font><font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3"><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="'Trebuchet
MS', sans-serif" size="3"><span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>ISPRS
WG IV/4"<span>Collaborative crowdsourced cloud
mapping (C3M)</span>";</span><span>
</span><span>OSGeo; </span><span>ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS
Advisory <font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Board</font>;
NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge;
</span><span>SIFET </span></p>
</span></font></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="'Trebuchet MS',
sans-serif" size="3"><span><b><font face="'Trebuchet
MS', sans-serif">Sol<font face="'Trebuchet
MS', sans-serif"> Katz<font face="'Trebuchet
MS', sans-serif">
<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Award<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">
2015</font></font></font></font></font></b></span></font></font><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>Via
Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITAL<font face="'Trebuchet
MS', sans-serif">Y</font>)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>Tel.
<a href="tel:%2B39-031-3327336" value="+390313327336" target="_blank">+39-031-3327336</a> - Mob.</span><span> <a href="tel:%2B39-328-0023867" value="+393280023867" target="_blank">+39-328-0023867</a> -
</span><span>fax. <font color="000000"><a href="tel:%2B39-031-3327321" value="+390313327321" target="_blank">+39-031-3327321</a></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>e-mail1: <font color="333333"><font face="'Trebuchet MS',
sans-serif"><a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it" target="_blank">maria.brovelli@<wbr>polimi.it</a></font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span><a>e-mail2</a>:</span><span>
<font color="333333"><font face="'Trebuchet MS',
sans-serif"><a href="mailto:prorettrice@como.polimi.it" target="_blank">prorettrice@como.polimi.it</a></font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><br>
<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif" size="3"> </font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>Da:</b> Conference_dev
<a href="mailto:conference_dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank"><conference_dev-bounces@lists.<wbr>osgeo.org></a> per conto
di Cameron Shorter <a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" target="_blank"><cameron.shorter@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Inviato:</b> lunedì 19 settembre 2016 22.21<br>
<b>A:</b> <a href="mailto:board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">board@lists.osgeo.org</a>; conference<br>
<b>Oggetto:</b> Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION :
Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and
Process</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt">
<div> It is worth noting that the vast
majority of decisions made within a
<br>
project typically are non-contentious and need not be
slowed down by <br>
waiting for a majority vote.<br>
<br>
OSGeo-Live has developed similar guidelines to MapServer
PSC to <br>
efficiently achieve rough consensus:<br>
<br>
"""<br>
<br>
For most decisions, a motion is raised within one of the
OSGeo-Live open <br>
forums (IRC, email list, etc) and those present vote and
decide. Should <br>
there be contention in deciding, and after discussion at
least one <br>
member is still strongly against the motion, by
continuing to vote -1, <br>
the motion should be referred to the PSC.<br>
<br>
For motions presented to the PSC, a motion is considered
passed when <br>
there are more PSC +1 votes than -1 votes, and either
all PSC members <br>
have voted, or 4 days have passed. In the case of a tie,
the PSC chair <br>
shall have 1.5 votes.<br>
<br>
"""<br>
<br>
<a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Management" target="_blank">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/<wbr>Live_GIS_Management</a><br>
<br>
<br>
On 20/09/2016 3:41 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:<br>
> BTW, as a complement of information, some
committees such as the <br>
> MapServer PSC [1] and others who used the same
template have addressed <br>
> the question of being unable to reach consensus due
to vetos as follows:<br>
><br>
> """<br>
> If a proposal is vetoed, and it cannot be revised
to satisfy all <br>
> parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override
vote in which a <br>
> majority of all eligible voters indicating +1 is
sufficient to pass <br>
> it. Note that this is a majority of all committee
members, not just <br>
> those who actively vote.<br>
> """<br>
><br>
> Maybe our generic OSGeo committee guidelines [2]
could be revised to <br>
> include such an override vote concept?<br>
><br>
> Daniel<br>
><br>
><br>
> [1] <br>
> <a href="http://mapserver.org/fr/development/rfc/ms-rfc-23.html#detailed-process" target="_blank">http://mapserver.org/fr/<wbr>development/rfc/ms-rfc-23.<wbr>html#detailed-process</a><br>
> [2] <a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines" target="_blank">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/<wbr>Committee_Guidelines</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 2016-09-19 1:29 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:<br>
>> Thanks Arnulf, I did not realise that a -1
could be a veto.<br>
>><br>
>> Could Venka and Maria please confirm whether
their -1 was intended to <br>
>> be a veto? If either of you intended your -1 to
be a veto could you <br>
>> propose an alternative that would be acceptable
to you and we will <br>
>> re-vote on an amended motion.<br>
>><br>
>> I also note that the guidelines say "As long as
the motions collect <br>
>> at least two +1's, and no -1 vetos over a
period of two business <br>
>> days, they will be considered passed, subject
to the judgement of the <br>
>> chair…” Given the discussion about what would
constitute an <br>
>> acceptable quorum, that may need to be changed
across the whole <br>
>> organisation as well.<br>
>><br>
>> If we are going to continue to allow a veto
vote then I suggest that <br>
>> it should be declared as a veto rather than a
-1 so that there is <br>
>> clarity. Having a veto vote does suggest that a
smaller committee <br>
>> size would help to reach decisions.<br>
>><br>
>> Does the veto vote apply to a selection type
vote e.g for a <br>
>> committee/board member or the choice of a
FOSS4G?<br>
>><br>
>> I would be in favour of a switch to a majority
voting system as the <br>
>> aspiration to achieve consensus will become
more difficult as we grow <br>
>> and will certainly slow us down (I accept that
may be a ‘good’ thing <br>
>> when taking momentous decisions).<br>
>><br>
>> You learn something every day :)<br>
>><br>
>> ______<br>
>> Steven<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 17:58, Seven (aka
Arnulf) <a href="mailto:seven@arnulf.us" target="_blank"><seven@arnulf.us></a> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Steven,<br>
>>> so far we actually always counted a -1 as a
veto.<br>
>>> <a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines" target="_blank">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/<wbr>Committee_Guidelines</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> But this strong vote probably has to be
communicated to the voting<br>
>>> members every now and then because new
people come in who don't know <br>
>>> the<br>
>>> power of this vote and may use it to show
their disagreement without<br>
>>> knowing that they will actually completely
block the process. It is <br>
>>> also<br>
>>> important to note that a -1 veto will only
be valid if the voter<br>
>>> explains the rationale of his or her vote
and also proposes a viable<br>
>>> alternative solution.<br>
>>><br>
>>> That said, maybe OSGeo as an organization
is also moving out of the<br>
>>> phase where this type of consensus and
compromise-finding is a<br>
>>> realistically achievable goal. In that case
we may want to change the<br>
>>> general voting system to a majority vote as
is typical for democratic<br>
>>> systems. This is something for the board or
maybe even the charter<br>
>>> members to decide.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Personally I would prefer to stick with the
-1 is-a-veto voting system<br>
>>> because it is the only way to make sure
that nobody feels left out. But<br>
>>> as said, maybe we have grown too big to be
able to afford this <br>
>>> leniency.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Have fun,<br>
>>> Arnulf<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 19.09.2016 17:01, Steven Feldman wrote:<br>
>>>> I was not aware that the CC had a
consensus voting system with -1 <br>
>>>> being<br>
>>>> a veto. I can’t recall any mention of a
veto vote in any past CC<br>
>>>> decisions, it would make it very
unlikely (if not impossible) to reach<br>
>>>> decisions in a timely manner.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I thought we already had simple
majority voting within the CC (what<br>
>>>> David described as a Parliamentary
system) with +1 being in favour and<br>
>>>> -1 being against and +0 being an
abstention and a majority decision.<br>
>>>> That was my intention for the motion.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> The discussion about a quorum was to
determine the minimum number <br>
>>>> of CC<br>
>>>> members required to vote for a vote to
be valid and of those voters a<br>
>>>> majority would decide the outcome.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> For the record, the modus operandi of
the CC is to discuss topics <br>
>>>> in an<br>
>>>> open forum on the mailing list and
after discussing to move to a vote.<br>
>>>> We have not in the past held regular
meetings and I was not <br>
>>>> proposing to<br>
>>>> change that practice. The one exception
was the CC meeting on IRC to<br>
>>>> discuss the proposals for the 2017
FOSS4G selection before we moved <br>
>>>> to a<br>
>>>> vote, I have incorporated such a
meeting in the RfP for 2018.<br>
>>>> ______<br>
>>>> Steven<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 15:32, David
William Bitner <<a href="mailto:bitner@dbspatial.com" target="_blank">bitner@dbspatial.com</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:bitner@dbspatial.com" target="_blank">mailto:bitner@dbspatial.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> In general for a consensus +1/-1
system, -1 is considered a veto. <br>
>>>>> This<br>
>>>>> is why I chose to vote +0 to
indicate that I do not fully approve but<br>
>>>>> did not want to stop the vote. By
the consensus system, the two -1<br>
>>>>> votes should act as vetos. This
committee has typically used +1/-1 <br>
>>>>> but<br>
>>>>> on a much more straight vote
system, perhaps in the future to avoid<br>
>>>>> confusion we should not use the
+1/-1 nomenclature if this is not our<br>
>>>>> intended outcome, but rather a more
parliamentary yes/no so as to<br>
>>>>> avoid confusion between the
intention of both systems.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> If we run our votes in a consensus
manner, I would support a quorum<br>
>>>>> rule for a vote as having an
affirmative +0/+1 vote from greater than<br>
>>>>> 50% of members with no dissenting
votes. Under a parliamentary <br>
>>>>> system,<br>
>>>>> it would make more sense to have a
quorum of 50% and a motion passing<br>
>>>>> with a majority of those /who
voted/ supporting the vote.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:57 AM,
Venkatesh Raghavan<br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank">venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a> <<a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a>><wbr>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I think quorum denotes the
minimum members that<br>
>>>>> must be present in a meeting for
the proceedings<br>
>>>>> to be valid. I my opinion, this
should be more<br>
>>>>> that 50% of the total number in
the committee.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The number of votes required for
a motion to<br>
>>>>> pass (this is different from
quorum) would<br>
>>>>> also be more than 50% of the
total members<br>
>>>>> in the committee.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Does the members of CC have the
power of veto?<br>
>>>>> In my understanding -1 indicates
a veto.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Best<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Venka<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 9/19/2016 6:07 PM, Steven
Feldman wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The voting results are:<br>
>>>>> +1 = 12<br>
>>>>> +0 = 1<br>
>>>>> -1 = 2<br>
>>>>> Not voted = 3<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The motion is carried.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I know that the 2 -1 voters
wanted to raise the quorum for a<br>
>>>>> vote, I support that. Would
someone like to start a new thread<br>
>>>>> and propose a higher quorum
for a vote.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I will start a new thread to
discuss how we reduce our<br>
>>>>> membership numbers to the
level that we have just approved.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Cheers<br>
>>>>> ______<br>
>>>>> Steven<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 9 Sep 2016, at 15:41,
Steven Feldman<br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" target="_blank">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>
<<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> This mail is aimed at
the current members of the<br>
>>>>> Conference Committee (we
do not have a private list).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Only committee members
can vote on these proposals, others<br>
>>>>> on this list are welcome
to comment and committee members<br>
>>>>> will hopefully take note
of those opinions when voting on<br>
>>>>> the matters proposed.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The current membership
of the conference committee is<br>
>>>>> listed at<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members" target="_blank">
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/<wbr>Conference_Committee#Current_<wbr>Members</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members" target="_blank">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/<wbr>Conference_Committee#Current_<wbr>Members</a>><br>
>>>>> <<a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members" target="_blank">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/<wbr>Conference_Committee#Current_<wbr>Members</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members" target="_blank">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/<wbr>Conference_Committee#Current_<wbr>Members</a>>>.<br>
>>>>> We have 19 members after
Dave McIlhagga resigned and after<br>
>>>>> we co-opted Till Adams
as the chair of FOSS4G2016. There<br>
>>>>> is currently no policy
or rule for eligibility nor for<br>
>>>>> requiring a member to
retire after a period of time.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I have suggested in the
past that we needed to have an<br>
>>>>> open and fair process
for selecting members and limiting<br>
>>>>> the maximum number of
committee members. At the face to<br>
>>>>> face it was agreed that
I should propose a policy.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I propose the following:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Goals<br>
>>>>> =====<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The conference committee
have the responsibility to run<br>
>>>>> the selection process
and voting for the global FOSS4G, to<br>
>>>>> vote on other proposals
submitted to the committee and to<br>
>>>>> advise the board on
other matters relating to FOSS4G <br>
>>>>> events.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Role of the Committee
and the broader community on the<br>
>>>>> Conference_Dev list<br>
>>>>>
==============================<wbr>==============================<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 1) Everyday topics will
be decided upon by an open vote of<br>
>>>>> all list participants in
a clearly designated separate<br>
>>>>> mail thread (+1/-1) over
a minimum of two business days<br>
>>>>> with a minimum
participation of 3 votes. Ideally we aim<br>
>>>>> for consensus falling
back on simple majority vote where<br>
>>>>> necessary. The result
will be clearly declared afterwards<br>
>>>>> (or whatever is
decided).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 2) Election of
conference committee is by secret vote and<br>
>>>>> restricted to the
remaining conference committee members<br>
>>>>> and board members who
are not members of the conference<br>
>>>>> committee.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 3) FOSS4G Selection -
All Letters of Intent and subsequent<br>
>>>>> proposals will be posted
to the list for open comment by<br>
>>>>> all participants. The
selection of the winning proposal is<br>
>>>>> by secret vote of
conference committee members only. Any<br>
>>>>> committee member who has
a potential conflict of interest<br>
>>>>> is expected to withdraw
from vote. In the event of a<br>
>>>>> disagreement the
committee chair will decide.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Votes in 2 and 3 are to
an online voting service or by<br>
>>>>> email to an independent
teller appointed by CC Chair<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Conference Committee
membership policy and process<br>
>>>>>
==============================<wbr>============<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 1) The conference
committee aims to retain up to 11 active<br>
>>>>> members, preferably an
odd number<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 2) The committee aims
for half of these members to be<br>
>>>>> chairs (or vice chairs)
of the most recent FOSS4G global<br>
>>>>> events. The chair of the
most recent FOSS4G event will<br>
>>>>> automatically be invited
to become a member<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 3) The remaining
membership is open, ideally attracting<br>
>>>>> people from earlier past
chairs or active LOC members from<br>
>>>>> past Global, Regional
FOSS4G or related conferences<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 4) Each year (after
FOSS4G) the 3 committee members should<br>
>>>>> stand down:<br>
>>>>> a) The longest standing
past FOSS4G chair<br>
>>>>> b) The longest standing
2 committee members remaining<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 5) Each year, prior to
putting out the Global FOSS4G RfP,<br>
>>>>> the old committee should
vote for their replacement<br>
>>>>> committee, using the
above criteria as voting guidelines.<br>
>>>>> OSGeo Board members who
are not on the conference<br>
>>>>> committee will also be
invited to vote.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 6) Past committee
members including those who have stood<br>
>>>>> down due to length of
service may stand for re-election<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 7) Votes will be secret
either using an online voting<br>
>>>>> system or by email to a
designated teller who is not a<br>
>>>>> voter. The mechanism
will be selected by the committee <br>
>>>>> chair.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I would ask committee
members (and list participants) to<br>
>>>>> comment on this proposal
by 18.00 GMT Wednesday 14th<br>
>>>>> September. I will then
call for a vote amongst committee<br>
>>>>> members only, the vote
will close at 18.00 GMT on Sunday<br>
>>>>> 18th September.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Once the membership
policy has been agreed we will then<br>
>>>>> need to apply the policy
to the existing membership. I<br>
>>>>> suggest that we ask all
current members to confirm whether<br>
>>>>> they wish to remain
committee members and then hold an<br>
>>>>> election (if needed). To
this end it would be helpful if<br>
>>>>> each committee member
could update their record on the<br>
>>>>> wiki page to show when
they joined the conference<br>
>>>>> committee (see my
example).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The intention is that a
2016-7 committee of 11 will have<br>
>>>>> been selected before we
vote on the LoI’s for 2018, which<br>
>>>>> is likely to be before
the end of October.<br>
>>>>> ______<br>
>>>>> Steven<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>>>>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">mailto:Conference_dev@lists.<wbr>osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a> <br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">mailto:Conference_dev@lists.<wbr>osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> -- <br>
>>>>>
******************************<wbr>******<br>
>>>>> David William Bitner<br>
>>>>> dbSpatial LLC<br>
>>>>> <a href="tel:612-424-9932" value="+16124249932" target="_blank">612-424-9932</a><br>
>>>>>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a> <br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">mailto:Conference_dev@lists.<wbr>osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a><br>
>><br>
>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>> Board mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Cameron Shorter<br>
M <a href="tel:%2B61%20419%20142%20254" value="+61419142254" target="_blank">+61 419 142 254</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a></div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
M <a href="tel:%2B61%20419%20142%20254" value="+61419142254" target="_blank">+61 419 142 254</a></pre>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________</span><br><span>Conference_dev mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a></span></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>