[Qgis-psc] QGIS AGM 2018

Wed Mar 7 22:17:24 PST 2018

Thanks for your comments Matthias, they sound reasonable to me. Can I suggest that bootstrap your idea by proposing specific wording changes to the charter (including section number etc.) in the matters arising question of the form. Thus will then be put out to the community of voters for review and approval. If approved it will be incorporated into the charter and actioned for the next AGM.

Regards

Tim

> On 08 Mar 2018, at 04:32, Matthias Kuhn <matthias at opengis.ch> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Keeping things focused is a key requirement for our group to function properly, so it's important not to get sidetracked too much in discussions about minor details. In the past this happened to us sometimes, so I see also that we need to try to avoid this as much as possible.
> 
> On the other hand for me as a voting member it's right now impossible to see the implications of the proposed amendments without any comments and discussion about risks and benefits.
> This is the legally binding base for out organisation, so it should be treated with as much caution as possible. There is a certain risk that we (even unintentionally) pass an amendment with unexpected side-effects. To avoid this, an opinion building process and community review is in my opinion inevitable. I would therefore like to second the proposal brought forward here by Denis.
> 
> 
> One approach I could think of, based on the Swiss system:
> 
>  * Another member needs to second a proposal (as proposed by you, compares to 100'000 signatures)
>  * Proposals are published for review 4 weeks before the AGM. During this time, the proposal is no longer altered. But there are two things that can happen
> 
>      a) the PSC can bring forward a counterproposal up to 2 weeks before the AGM
> 
>      b) the one who handed in the motion can withdraw the proposal until 1 week before the AGM
> 
> The key properties are
> 
>  * we avoid nitpicking on proposals by locking them in once published for review. This should also give an incentive to motion authors to make them "publication ready" (for which they are obviously free to consult the community or PSC). At the same time, the PSC is not obligated to do any work here.
>  * there is a process for the community to correct a flawed proposal by coming up with an improved version (through the PSC)
>  * there is the possibility to make a proposal disappear if it's clear the counterproposal is better or it's simply not worth it because of new evidence from the discussion.
> 
> 
> I assume that in 90% of the cases things stay quiet and nothing of these happens. And that's good like this.
> 
> Best regards and thanks for a good discussion !
> Matthias
> 
> 
> On 03/07/2018 10:36 AM, Tim Sutton wrote:
>> Hi Denis
>> 
>> Thanks for your inputs Denis. I think it is better to separate the idea of an AGM and an ‘open forum’ meeting.
>> 
>> 
>> IMHO the AGM should be very focussed on the governance mechanism of the project with very specific, vote-ready motions put before the voting members. I believe our current format already supports this. Simply raise a motion (for example request to change the charter or other proposal to regularise the management of the project) on the form provided and we will share a subsequent form to the voting members where they can vote on all the issues raised. One thing that could be improved in the current system is that each motion should be seconded by at least one other voting member.
>> 
>> For open forum meetings where back and forth discussion is needed, our hackfests are a good place to manage this.
>> 
>> 
>> Anyway by all means things can always be improved - I will leave it to you the voting members to work with the incoming PSC and Board and Chair to iterate and improve on the processes that are already in place!
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 07 Mar 2018, at 15:03, Denis Rouzaud <denis.rouzaud at gmail.com <mailto:denis.rouzaud at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Regarding having material required to actually vote, I think that the processus could be improved for the next AGM.
>>> 
>>> To my opinion, we should receive the form as read-only first.
>>> There should be then a period of a few days for discussions and questions.
>>> The wiki could be a great place for this, people could fill questions there, PSC could reply and we would keep track of this.
>>> Then only voting would be open.
>>> 
>>> That would more correspond to the process of a "real" AGM where it's much easier to address questions but also express personal opinions or remarks.
>>> 
>>> I don't know if you think this is too complicated but we would avoid "voting before knowing".
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Denis
>>> 
>>> Le mer. 7 mars 2018 à 08:14, Tim Sutton <tim at kartoza.com <mailto:tim at kartoza.com>> a écrit :
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> It is a good proposal but deviates from how we have done things before so I have not prepared this. I will ask all the nominees to make a short 1 paragraph entry and then distribute it to you all for review. If you want to read these first, then please hold off on casting your votes until we have shared these.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 07 Mar 2018, at 12:01, matteo <matteo.ghetta at gmail.com <mailto:matteo.ghetta at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> as voting member I think that maybe a small and concise presentation on
>>>> what the new nominees intend to do for QGIS, so what are their plans.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't mean a full and detailed program, personally I know most of the
>>>> new members, but maybe other User Group voting members don't and could
>>>> mbernasocchi <https://opengisch.slack.com/team/U295WR55Y>1:21 PM <https://opengisch.slack.com/archives/C295LQ90V/p1520443269000823>20:00 ok for me.
>>>> @marioba <https://opengisch.slack.com/team/U3JAZ4L9E>?
>>>> be useful also for them.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> 
>>>> Matteo
>>> 
>>> —
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <KartozaNewLogoThumbnail.jpg>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tim Sutton
>>> 
>>> Co-founder: Kartoza
>>> Project chair: QGIS.org <http://qgis.org/>
>>> 
>>> Visit http://kartoza.com <http://kartoza.com/> to find out about open source:
>>> 
>>> Desktop GIS programming services
>>> Geospatial web development
>>> GIS Training
>>> Consulting Services
>>> 
>>> Skype: timlinux
>>> IRC: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net <http://freenode.net/>
>> 
>> —
>> 
>> 
>> <KartozaNewLogoThumbnail.jpg>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Tim Sutton
>> 
>> Co-founder: Kartoza
>> Project chair: QGIS.org <http://qgis.org/>
>> 
>> Visit http://kartoza.com <http://kartoza.com/> to find out about open source:
>> 
>> Desktop GIS programming services
>> Geospatial web development
>> GIS Training
>> Consulting Services
>> 
>> Skype: timlinux
>> IRC: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net <http://freenode.net/>
> 

—

Tim Sutton

Co-founder: Kartoza
Project chair: QGIS.org

Visit http://kartoza.com <http://kartoza.com/> to find out about open source:

Desktop GIS programming services
Geospatial web development
GIS Training
Consulting Services

Skype: timlinux
IRC: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20180308/bced35a9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KartozaNewLogoThumbnail.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6122 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20180308/bced35a9/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20180308/bced35a9/attachment.sig>