[Qgis-psc] QGIS AGM 2018

[Régis Haubourg]

Hi,
I would keep the withdrawal part with the alternative proposal :

"Motions
can be withdrawn up to 7 days before the AGM if both, author and PSC,
agree to this move."

I think this could help in removing noise to the AGM members to be able to
cancel some votings when a consensus is finally reached before going to the
end of the voting process.

Concerning the risk of having lobbies trying to influence directly the
author, if in any case this happens, we have the possibility to raise
another proposal after that to try again. In our QGIS opened community I
think it is a sufficient fence against that kind of bad behavior.

Regards,
Régis

2018-03-13 9:37 GMT+01:00 Luigi Pirelli <luipir at gmail.com>:

> I would remove the possibility to withdrawn a proposal, the reason is
> to rest "power" to the author. In the moment A is presented (28 days
> before) it is a collective proposal. The AGM will decide if accept A,
> B or A(B).
> The main reason to remove is to avoid lobbing pressure to the an author.
>
> the new paragraph would be
>
> "Proposals can be handed in with their final text by any voting
> member or PSC member up to 28 days before the AGM and need to be
> supported by a second member of these categories. Proposals will be sent
> to all voting members 28 days before the AGM. The PSC has the possibility
> to present one or more counterproposals for any of the pending proposals
> up to 14 days before the AGM."
>
> cheers
> Luigi Pirelli
>
> ************************************************************
> **************************************
> * LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
> * Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
> * GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
> * Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
> * https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-
> intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
> * Hire me: http://goo.gl/BYRQKg
> ************************************************************
> **************************************
>
>
> On 13 March 2018 at 01:15, Matthias Kuhn <matthias at opengis.ch> wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedbacks Tim and Vincent.
> >
> > I have tried to write this down as good as I can as a layman and non
> native.
> >
> >
> > I would propose to add a paragraph under section 8, after
> >
> >     Every officially convened general meeting has a quorum. At elections
> > and for voting a simple majority (more than 50%) of the present members
> > decides, except for the cases listed in sections 6.1, 7.1. and 5.4.
> >
> > The new amendment shall read
> >
> >     Proposals can be handed in with their final text by any voting
> > member or PSC member up to 28 days before the AGM and need to be
> > supported by a second member of these categories. Proposals will be sent
> > to all voting members 28 days before the AGM. Motions can be withdrawn
> > by the author up to 7 days before the AGM. The PSC has the possibility
> > to present one or more counterproposals for any of the pending proposals
> > up to 14 days before the AGM.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure if we want to write this down as well, but in case of
> > counterproposals, the mode should be
> >
> > [ ] I agree to proposal A
> >
> > [ ] I agree to counterproposal B
> >
> > [ ] I prefer proposal [A/B] in case both are accepted
> >
> >
> > I highly encourage anyone to comment and improve on content and wording.
> >
> > For instance
> >
> >  * I am not completely sure if this "Motions can be withdrawn by the
> > author up to 7 days before the AGM." makes sense, i.e. to give the power
> > to withdraw to a single person. Maybe better to have it read "Motions
> > can be withdrawn up to 7 days before the AGM if both, author and PSC,
> > agree to this move."
> >
> >  * We might need to add a delay between the motion hand-in deadline and
> > the sending of the proposal (hand in 30 days before, send out 28 days
> > before), just to make sure this is not too tight for the administrative
> > effort.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for any constructive comments!
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Matthias
> >
> >
> > On 03/08/2018 02:17 AM, Tim Sutton wrote:
> >> 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20180313/4b9c7abc/attachment.html>