[OSGeo-Standards] [vote] Creation of the OSGeo Standards Committee
Even Rouault
even.rouault at spatialys.com
Wed Feb 8 05:14:14 PST 2023
Hi,
What if we never reach any consensus on the voting rules ? I'd say just
go ahead with the initial motion, or just unilaterally decide "as head
of the committee, those are the rules we have decided to bootstrap the
comittee". Democratic process can't be democratically bootstrapped:
benevolent dictators needed :-)
The +2 no -1 rule has been in place for a long time for GDAL, MapServer,
PROJ, etc and has proved to be working (at least decisions can be taken
in those projects), and if someone feels strong about changing the
voting rules, they can always raise a motion at a later change to change
the process.
My 2 cents
Even
Le 08/02/2023 à 13:57, Tom Kralidis a écrit :
> Hi all: given the discussion below, it makes sense for the Standards
> Committee to further discuss voting processes before moving forward.
> As a result, the motion is withdrawn and will be submitted for
> Committee vote once we have the appropriate clarifications.
>
> Thanks
>
> ..Tom
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 12:19 PM Angelos Tzotsos
> <gcpp.kalxas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ok, I think we need to reach to some agreement on this before passing
> the motion.
>
> How about we require at least 30% of the votes (4 currently) and
> no veto?
>
> Angelos
>
> On 2/3/23 18:28, Howard Butler 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Standards at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Standards mailing list
> >>> Standards at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Standards at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> >> --
> >> http://www.spatialys.com <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
>
>
> --
> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
> President
> Open Source Geospatial Foundation
> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230208/1f975137/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Standards
mailing list