[Oceania-Board] resolving resolutions

[Alex Leith]

It's not limiting the number of people able to vote. It's about whether we
recognise the vote as valid. I think, and I believe John agrees, that those
who participate in the vote need to constitute a quorum, otherwise it's
invalid.

I'm not sure that leaving a vote open for longer will mean more people
participate.

Anyhow, I've had enough navel gazing.

On John's first point, which I think you're getting at Adam, "the motion
was closed before everyone had a chance to participate". The vote was open
for three days, and perhaps we should not have them so short. I don't think
it invalidates this, though.

So we have two options, on thinking about it:

   1. Accept that a quorum participated and that the vote was affirmative
   and communicate this to the MWG
   2. Invalidate the vote, and launch a new Loomio with a different
   phrasing, something along the lines of Adam's suggestion that "the MWG sets
   the rules around who joins in their terms of reference". (The ToR is
   approved by the Board, so the Board has oversight/control.)

Thoughts?

On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 19:26, Adam Steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania-Board mailing list
> Oceania-Board at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board
>


-- 
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania-board/attachments/20201116/e3e998be/attachment.html>