[Oceania-Board] resolving resolutions

[Adam Steer]

I think using the constitution to limit the number of people able to
vote is a bit weird. OSGeo Oceania should follow the convention set by
OSGeo, where online votes seek more than 50% of people who can vote
and provide enough time for that to happen.

We should always be aiming to make the pool of people able to
participate in decisions larger.




On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 08:54, Alex Leith <alexgleith at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey John
>
> I think we have some ambiguity about whether or not voting on these kinds of motions is based on those who vote, or of all board members?
>
> In the constitution, s 95 says 'a quorum for _board meetings_'... is half or half rounded up in the case of odd numbers.
>
> I think that the Board can govern appropriately in this case, and if we call these decisions essentially a mini-board meeting, which is suggested by s 91 as you say, then we could say that a quorum is those participating. In the case above 5 of 8 participated, so there was a quorum, in that sense. And out of the quorum, the motion was carried with 4 in agreement and 1 against.
>
> I agree that we shouldn't just kick this down the road. I'm really not very interested in debating constantly, and I'd prefer to just move forward.
>
> So my view is that the motion to change the membership policy IS changed.
>
> Do we have any dissenters or disagreement on my interpretation above?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 18:30, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Chiming in as a concerned member of the community. I see some unresolved problems:
>>
>> This motion was closed before some directors had a chance to participate, without following due process. Now what? It's left unclear whether this motion has actually passed.
>> Supposing the motion is considered to have been carried, it's now suggested that it's not binding, and is handed off to the incoming board for discussion and action, "if actual changes are need to the ToR". Surely, if the explicit purpose of the motion is to change the Membership Policy, and it passes, then the next action is to actually change the Membership Policy?
>>
>> Very confusing. What is the outcome? Is the Membership Policy changed or not?
>>
>> (Incidentally - in February, the board agreed to use Loomio for decisions outside of board meetings [1], to bring much needed clarity & transparency to decision making. This seems well supported by the constitution (s 91) and these decisions should be considered binding.)
>>
>> [1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TYAw_zmNEqajzxO1PQwPnpt539CXodby/view
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 16:17, Adam Steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I really want to press upon everybody that we are volunteers, we should not have to be an instantly reactive board (responsive yes, but that is a different approach), and we should avoid prioritising immediate convenience (for some) over good practice.
>>>
>>> In the end the ToR change was not needed, and the vote is questionable. I think it is reasonable to expect that for online votes we need majority of all board members, and also to expect a poll summary to go out via this list. I think using loomio to poll for everything (eg board meetings) is unwieldy.
>>>
>>> I'm super happy that the MwG could get through all the new memberships!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oceania-Board mailing list
>>> Oceania-Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oceania-Board mailing list
>> Oceania-Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board
>
>
>
> --
> Alex Leith
> m: 0419189050
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania-Board mailing list
> Oceania-Board at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board