[Oceania-Board] resolving resolutions

Mon Nov 16 13:18:59 PST 2020

Hey Everyone

What I've proposed to Ed is that he updates the MWG Policy along with his
working group and passes that to the Board to vote on. I think this is the
best way forward. We can set a week aside to vote, and they can set up the
policy they believe is appropriate. MWG Policy:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17p6LxjGXgZvjRcK0_RA9RbrD6uCptBp8lLM3fXiy9ng/edit

So, I think that will resolve these two loomio polls that were raised
initially by Adam.

Thanks for your input.

Cheers,

On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 09:10, Martin Tomko <tomkom at unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

> I do believe that 3 days was insufficient, and that the wording was not
> thought through ( hence the comment in my vote).
>
>
>
> I believe that the procedures with members have, thus far, managed to work
> with the old rules, if I understand the recent email correctly. As no harm
> would then be done, I would support a revised wording and vote, with the 7
> days period as usual. 3 days is unfair, and certainly if triggered before
> weekend.
>
>
>
> That said, we need to trigger a discussion that many board members did not
> comment/vote. What does that mean for us?
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> *From: *Oceania-Board <oceania-board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Date: *Monday, 16 November 2020 at 8:30 am
> *To: *Adam Steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *oceania-board at lists.osgeo.org <oceania-board at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Oceania-Board] resolving resolutions
>
> 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
>

-- 
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania-board/attachments/20201117/f497f77c/attachment.html>