[OSGeo-Standards] [vote] Creation of the OSGeo Standards Committee

[Even Rouault]

I'm -0 on the change for a 50% quorum. Other OSGeo committees have such 
a quorum rule and struggle with reaching it because some members over 
time start become inactive and don't bother formally resigning, and 
people have to spend energy chasing for votes. The 2 +1 no -1 is very 
effective to avoid inactive members to become a burden for the rest of 
the group.

Le 03/02/2023 à 12:25, Tom Kralidis a écrit :
> Hi Bruce: thanks for the feedback.  The voting period has been 
> extended to one week, with a required 50% quorum.
>
> Given the change to the ToR, we will need to re-vote.
>
> I will start with my +1 given the updated ToR.
>
> Thanks
>
> ..Tom
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 8:15 PM Bruce Bannerman 
> <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi Tom,
>
>     It is good to see this development!
>
>     I’m in broad support of the TOR as at [1] below.
>
>     Two suggestions:
>
>       * Voting:
>           o I think that the two day limit on voting is too short,
>             based on my experiences with the Incubation Committee.
>           o Time needs to be allowed for members to find the proposal,
>             review a proposal, think about it and then vote.
>           o When committee members are busy, travelling, on holidays
>             etc, 2 days is too short.
>           o I suggest a one week limit to each vote.
>
>
>       * Quorum [2]
>           o I think that a Quorum of two is too small.
>           o Is the committee expecting minimal input from members? If
>             so then I’d question the raison d'etre of the committee.
>           o Perhaps set the Quorum at 51% of votes or something similar?
>
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Bruce
>
>     [2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quorum
>
>
>
>
>>     On 2 Feb 2023, at 01:44, Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi all: triggered by our recently updated MOU with OGC, and as
>>     discussed/presented at FOSS4G Florence, various members of the
>>     OSGeo standards community have been working together to establish
>>     a dedicated OSGeo Standards Committee.  The first order of
>>     business is to put forth a Terms of Reference as part of
>>     bootstrapping.
>>
>>     The Terms of Reference can be found in [1].
>>
>>     As part of bootstrapping, the ToR needs to be agreed upon by the
>>     initial Committee membership.  Once consensus is reached, then
>>     the Committee creation can be discussed at the next OSGeo Board
>>     meeting (end February) for Board approval.
>>
>>     I will start with my +1.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     ..Tom
>>
>>     [1]
>>     https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Standards_Committee#Terms_of_Reference
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Standards mailing list
>>     Standards at lists.osgeo.org
>>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

-- 
http://www.spatialys.com
My software is free, but my time generally not.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20230203/5320f2a8/attachment-0001.htm>