[Qgis-psc] QGIS AGM 2018

Thu Mar 8 00:57:56 PST 2018

Hi all,

On 08/03/2018 03:32, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
> Hi everyone,
[..]
> 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

This system sounds useful, fair and efficient to me. Thanks Matthias for
the proposal.

I would second this proposal therefore ;-)

Vincent

> 
> 
> 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/>
>>>
>>
>> —
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *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>
>>
> 