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

Wed Feb 8 05:23:18 PST 2023

Thanks for the feedback Even.  While I somewhat agree, our next Standards
Committee meeting is next week on 17 February 2023 [1], so
I think it doesn't hurt to have one last (brief) discussion before putting
our Committee forward.

Thanks

..Tom

[1]
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Standards_Committee/Meetings/Meeting-2023-02-17

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:14 AM Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
wrote:

> 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 result, the motion is withdrawn and will be submitted for Committee vote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 listStandards at lists.osgeo.orghttps://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/20230208/0932de4d/attachment.htm>