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

[Rajat Shinde]

+1

Best,
Rajat


On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:58 PM Howard Butler <howard at hobu.co> wrote:

> I am also -0. Anything controversial is going to attract attention and
> discussion, and anything that is inert or procedural ends up requiring
> chasing people to meet quorum requirements (I think I have resigned from
> the Incubation committee three different times as a result of people
> chasing votes).
>
> Howard
>
> On Feb 3, 2023, at 10:21 AM, Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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:
>>       - I think that the two day limit on voting is too short, based on
>>       my experiences with the Incubation Committee.
>>       - Time needs to be allowed for members to find the proposal,
>>       review a proposal, think about it and then vote.
>>       - When committee members are busy, travelling, on holidays etc, 2
>>       days is too short.
>>       - I suggest a one week limit to each vote.
>>
>>
>>
>>    - Quorum [2]
>>       - I think that a Quorum of two is too small.
>>       - Is the committee expecting minimal input from members? If so
>>       then I’d question the raison d'etre of the committee.
>>       - 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 listStandards at lists.osgeo.orghttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>
> -- http://www.spatialys.com
> My software is free, but my time generally not.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20230203/cc2ce117/attachment-0001.htm>