Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
49 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

R: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoI votes"

Maria Antonia Brovelli
+ 1 for not publishing
Maria



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]>
Data: 04/09/17 09:10 (GMT+01:00)
A: Till Adams <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoI votes"

On 9/4/2017 3:45 PM, Till Adams wrote:
...
> Call for vote:
> I would propose *not* to publish the number of votes on LoI's as we did
> (presumably accidentally) for the 2018 RfP - I remember that the number
> of votes pro Dar was at least one of the reasons for Bangkok to withdraw.
> I suggest to vote on this.
> Please vote on this until 8th of September (24h CET ;-))

+1 for *not* publishing the number of votes
at any stage during or after the selection.

Venka

>
> One following up question:
> The voting was performed by nominating one "vote collector" - right?
> Does anybody has a person in mind?
>
> Till
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

Sanghee Shin
In reply to this post by Venkatesh Raghavan-2

Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any stage.

 

Cheers,

신상희
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com

 

보낸 사람: [hidden email]
보낸 날짜: 2017 9 4일 월요일 오후 4:10
받는 사람: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
제목: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

 

On 9/4/2017 3:45 PM, Till Adams wrote:

...

> Call for vote:

> I would propose *not* to publish the number of votes on LoI's as we did

> (presumably accidentally) for the 2018 RfP - I remember that the number

> of votes pro Dar was at least one of the reasons for Bangkok to withdraw.

> I suggest to vote on this.

> Please vote on this until 8th of September (24h CET ;-))

 

+1 for *not* publishing the number of votes

at any stage during or after the selection.

 

Venka

 

> 

> One following up question:

> The voting was performed by nominating one "vote collector" - right?

> Does anybody has a person in mind?

> 

> Till

> _______________________________________________

> Conference_dev mailing list

> [hidden email]

> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

 

_______________________________________________

Conference_dev mailing list

[hidden email]

https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

 


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

stevenfeldman
Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any stage. "

My suggestion to publish LoI votes was based on the very low threshold for
inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to the
next stage we may be putting a team to a lot of work in preparing a full
proposal when they have little chance of being successful, hence my
suggestion.

We could also address this by requiring an LoI to receive at least 20% of
the votes cast by the committee at the first stage.

Re the final vote on proposals, I think it is helpful to those who have not
succeeded to understand how the voting worked.

In general we as a community prefer transparency, I am surprised that on
this important topic some would prefer the results of the conference
committee votes to remain a secret. I vote against this suggestion

Steven






--
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

delawen
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:39 PM, stevenfeldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any stage. "
>
> My suggestion to publish LoI votes was based on the very low threshold for
> inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to the
> next stage we may be putting a team to a lot of work in preparing a full
> proposal when they have little chance of being successful, hence my
> suggestion.

Why little chance? A proposal may not seem good until it has been
fully described in detail. Not everyone is fluent in English, not
everyone is good at showing their ideas. Personally (as an interested
party this year) I don't care how many votes receive each proposal, as
all of them should try as hard as they could to get the better
proposal. In fact, I think no one should be discarded on the first
phase unless their first draft is so awful it is clear they cannot
work on a good proposal.
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

Till Adams-3
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman
I  think publishing the vote results and the min. number of votes to
pass the first threshold are two pair of shoes.

I like the idea of a min. of 3 votes, but I prefer not to publish the
results.

Should we vote on the min. number of votes as well?

Till




Am 04.09.2017 um 16:39 schrieb stevenfeldman:

> Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any stage. "
>
> My suggestion to publish LoI votes was based on the very low threshold for
> inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to the
> next stage we may be putting a team to a lot of work in preparing a full
> proposal when they have little chance of being successful, hence my
> suggestion.
>
> We could also address this by requiring an LoI to receive at least 20% of
> the votes cast by the committee at the first stage.
>
> Re the final vote on proposals, I think it is helpful to those who have not
> succeeded to understand how the voting worked.
>
> In general we as a community prefer transparency, I am surprised that on
> this important topic some would prefer the results of the conference
> committee votes to remain a secret. I vote against this suggestion
>
> Steven
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Peter Batty
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
+1 on allowing bidders flexibility on the dates that they propose.

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 - fully agreed. So we wil lhint on our regular time period, but let the bidding teams propose their favoured times.

I just wanted to start a discussion around this and detect the opinions around that.

(Now knowing, that also is an option in the meaning of some members of CC, I feel less guilty because we @Bonn started this August-dates ;-))


Till





Am 03.09.2017 19:59, schrieb Steven Feldman:
+1 to everything MT has said below re dates

I’d also add that moving to September may well mean a clash with the Jewish High Holy Days which often land in September or early October. No date choice works for everyone!

Let’s live the choice of date open to bidders and ask them to give some explanation of the reason for their choice and the outline  possible options to move to another date/venue at a different cost (if any)
______
Steven


On 3 Sep 2017, at 18:29, Michael Terner <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just one note on dates coming in the wake of Boston where we heard loud, and often about our mid-August time period. And, as has been pointed out, this timing did not deter our ability to attract a record number of delegates:
  1. No time period is good for everyone. Some people are on vacation in August. Other people have significant academic calendar challenges with September. There will always be some people disappointed/frustrated by a given date. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the conference to declare that August vacations are more/less important than other legitimate conflicts with other time periods.
  2. At least in the US, there are significant cost and availability variations between August and September/October. Boston would have been a more expensive conference, with more expensive lodging had it been held in September.
  3. Indeed, while August does mean that some people who are on vacation cannot come, it is likely that it also opened up an ability for others to come who might not have been able to make a September date (hence the good attendance figures from the past 2 August conferences).
From my vantage, it is OK to have a conference that moves around an August - October time period. The specific conference date is chosen by the CC/Board and based on what was proposed. I do not believe it is in the best long term interest of the conference to have iron-clad limits on what might be proposed.

Reading from afar, it looks like very good work, with predictable challenges attempting to be addressed (i.e., cost containment; data selection; etc.). Best of luck in getting the RFP for 2019 on the street. 

MT

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till,

Thanks so much for taking the lead on this. In our do-ocracy your vote counts for much.

Re selecting dates, I agree we have diverse opinions on dates and are not likely to agree, but lets not have our committee members select a conference venue based on date proposed, (which might be the case if the opinions voiced here is the case). It is not fair to the cities putting in proposals.

We should collectively work out our opinion as a committee, and provide that information to proposers. Maybe do a poll of voting committee members for date ranges, and present that information to proposing cities.



On 31/8/17 11:58 pm, Till Adams wrote:
Hi CC,

based on the discussion that already took pace in the past 2 hours, I think we will not find an agreement, that satisfies everybody here. I'd suggest to follow Steven (let the bidding teams suggest their prefered date) and add a comment, that teams should line out, what an alternative date would mean in sight of costs or other circumstances (in Bonn they tourist office simply told me, that they could not block as many accommodations as needed).

So, if a bidding team suggests a date, that lies in "normal" holiday periods (I know, that holidays vary from year to year, in Germany they do it for every state every year), we could please them to briefly line out what an alternative date in, let's say, September would mean.

I'd more prefer, if anybody from CC (except Steven, he is on holidays ;-)) could make comments on my time schedule for the RFP... ;-)

Till





Am <a href="tel:31.08.2017%2015" value="+13108201715" target="_blank">31.08.2017 15:51, schrieb Dirk Frigne:
IMHO was Bonn (2016) during the last week of August. Boston (2017) was
August 15, which is a holiday and in the middle of the holiday season.

my2c.

btw, how many visitors where in Boston?

On 31-08-17 15:17, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
Several members of our community have pointed out that it is an issue
for them to attend, e.g. Jeroen Ticheler pointed this out before. For me
this is the same, I normally can't attend a conference in the school
vacation. Boston wasn't possible. Bonn was barely possible because
schools had just started that week (but some years school vacation will
be until early September even due to regional rotation).

Looking at attendance figures and saying it's no big issue doesn't
really give the right attention to the problem IMHO.

Also even if the venue might be cheaper, I'm sure flights and
accommodation will be expensive in the European holiday season.

Best regards,

Bart


On 31-08-17 15:03, Steven Feldman wrote:
2016 was in august and attracted 940/950 people
2017 was in august and attracted 1140 people
That's record attendance 2 years running (in August)

Doesn't look like August is a big issue for us in the northern
hemisphere.
I also heard from some of the organisers that they were able to obtain
lower rates for venues in August

I think we should leave it to LOCs to propose the dates that work for
them based on regional holiday patterns, pricing, weather and any
other constraints they may have

Now I'm going back to my end of august holiday ;)

Steven


On 31 Aug 2017, at 13:15, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference
dates:
I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or
maybe also
cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also
know,
that there have been some problems for people attending the
conferences in
2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe
we can
also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
conference in August?
I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
northern summer may look appealing to people that go to conferences as
if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
from work, this is a major issue.
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
On 9/5/2017 12:01 AM, Till Adams wrote:
> I  think publishing the vote results and the min. number of votes to
> pass the first threshold are two pair of shoes.

I agree. On a lighter vein, it should be one pair of shoes.

>
> I like the idea of a min. of 3 votes, but I prefer not to publish the
> results.
>
> Should we vote on the min. number of votes as well?

I do not feel that vote on min. number of votes is necessary.

Best

Venka

>
> Till
>
>
>
>
> Am 04.09.2017 um 16:39 schrieb stevenfeldman:
>> Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any stage. "
>>
>> My suggestion to publish LoI votes was based on the very low threshold for
>> inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to the
>> next stage we may be putting a team to a lot of work in preparing a full
>> proposal when they have little chance of being successful, hence my
>> suggestion.
>>
>> We could also address this by requiring an LoI to receive at least 20% of
>> the votes cast by the committee at the first stage.
>>
>> Re the final vote on proposals, I think it is helpful to those who have not
>> succeeded to understand how the voting worked.
>>
>> In general we as a community prefer transparency, I am surprised that on
>> this important topic some would prefer the results of the conference
>> committee votes to remain a secret. I vote against this suggestion
>>
>> Steven
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

R: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Maria Antonia Brovelli
In reply to this post by Peter Batty
+1 
Maria



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Peter Batty <[hidden email]>
Data: 04/09/17 17:10 (GMT+01:00)
A: conference <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

+1 on allowing bidders flexibility on the dates that they propose.

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 - fully agreed. So we wil lhint on our regular time period, but let the bidding teams propose their favoured times.

I just wanted to start a discussion around this and detect the opinions around that.

(Now knowing, that also is an option in the meaning of some members of CC, I feel less guilty because we @Bonn started this August-dates ;-))


Till





Am 03.09.2017 19:59, schrieb Steven Feldman:
+1 to everything MT has said below re dates

I’d also add that moving to September may well mean a clash with the Jewish High Holy Days which often land in September or early October. No date choice works for everyone!

Let’s live the choice of date open to bidders and ask them to give some explanation of the reason for their choice and the outline  possible options to move to another date/venue at a different cost (if any)
______
Steven


On 3 Sep 2017, at 18:29, Michael Terner <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just one note on dates coming in the wake of Boston where we heard loud, and often about our mid-August time period. And, as has been pointed out, this timing did not deter our ability to attract a record number of delegates:
  1. No time period is good for everyone. Some people are on vacation in August. Other people have significant academic calendar challenges with September. There will always be some people disappointed/frustrated by a given date. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the conference to declare that August vacations are more/less important than other legitimate conflicts with other time periods.
  2. At least in the US, there are significant cost and availability variations between August and September/October. Boston would have been a more expensive conference, with more expensive lodging had it been held in September.
  3. Indeed, while August does mean that some people who are on vacation cannot come, it is likely that it also opened up an ability for others to come who might not have been able to make a September date (hence the good attendance figures from the past 2 August conferences).
From my vantage, it is OK to have a conference that moves around an August - October time period. The specific conference date is chosen by the CC/Board and based on what was proposed. I do not believe it is in the best long term interest of the conference to have iron-clad limits on what might be proposed.

Reading from afar, it looks like very good work, with predictable challenges attempting to be addressed (i.e., cost containment; data selection; etc.). Best of luck in getting the RFP for 2019 on the street. 

MT

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till,

Thanks so much for taking the lead on this. In our do-ocracy your vote counts for much.

Re selecting dates, I agree we have diverse opinions on dates and are not likely to agree, but lets not have our committee members select a conference venue based on date proposed, (which might be the case if the opinions voiced here is the case). It is not fair to the cities putting in proposals.

We should collectively work out our opinion as a committee, and provide that information to proposers. Maybe do a poll of voting committee members for date ranges, and present that information to proposing cities.



On 31/8/17 11:58 pm, Till Adams wrote:
Hi CC,

based on the discussion that already took pace in the past 2 hours, I think we will not find an agreement, that satisfies everybody here. I'd suggest to follow Steven (let the bidding teams suggest their prefered date) and add a comment, that teams should line out, what an alternative date would mean in sight of costs or other circumstances (in Bonn they tourist office simply told me, that they could not block as many accommodations as needed).

So, if a bidding team suggests a date, that lies in "normal" holiday periods (I know, that holidays vary from year to year, in Germany they do it for every state every year), we could please them to briefly line out what an alternative date in, let's say, September would mean.

I'd more prefer, if anybody from CC (except Steven, he is on holidays ;-)) could make comments on my time schedule for the RFP... ;-)

Till





Am <a href="tel:31.08.2017%2015" value="&#43;13108201715" target="_blank">31.08.2017 15:51, schrieb Dirk Frigne:
IMHO was Bonn (2016) during the last week of August. Boston (2017) was
August 15, which is a holiday and in the middle of the holiday season.

my2c.

btw, how many visitors where in Boston?

On 31-08-17 15:17, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
Several members of our community have pointed out that it is an issue
for them to attend, e.g. Jeroen Ticheler pointed this out before. For me
this is the same, I normally can't attend a conference in the school
vacation. Boston wasn't possible. Bonn was barely possible because
schools had just started that week (but some years school vacation will
be until early September even due to regional rotation).

Looking at attendance figures and saying it's no big issue doesn't
really give the right attention to the problem IMHO.

Also even if the venue might be cheaper, I'm sure flights and
accommodation will be expensive in the European holiday season.

Best regards,

Bart


On 31-08-17 15:03, Steven Feldman wrote:
2016 was in august and attracted 940/950 people
2017 was in august and attracted 1140 people
That's record attendance 2 years running (in August)

Doesn't look like August is a big issue for us in the northern
hemisphere.
I also heard from some of the organisers that they were able to obtain
lower rates for venues in August

I think we should leave it to LOCs to propose the dates that work for
them based on regional holiday patterns, pricing, weather and any
other constraints they may have

Now I'm going back to my end of august holiday ;)

Steven


On 31 Aug 2017, at 13:15, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference
dates:
I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or
maybe also
cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also
know,
that there have been some problems for people attending the
conferences in
2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe
we can
also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
conference in August?
I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
northern summer may look appealing to people that go to conferences as
if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
from work, this is a major issue.
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

Darrell Fuhriman
In reply to this post by Venkatesh Raghavan-2
An alternative voting option is everyone gives an up or down vote on each proposal. Every proposal getting >50% (or whatever threshold) up votes proceeds to the next round.

d.



> On Sep 4, 2017, at 08:24, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2017 12:01 AM, Till Adams wrote:
>> I  think publishing the vote results and the min. number of votes to
>> pass the first threshold are two pair of shoes.
>
> I agree. On a lighter vein, it should be one pair of shoes.
>
>>
>> I like the idea of a min. of 3 votes, but I prefer not to publish the
>> results.
>>
>> Should we vote on the min. number of votes as well?
>
> I do not feel that vote on min. number of votes is necessary.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
>>
>> Till
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Am 04.09.2017 um 16:39 schrieb stevenfeldman:
>>> Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any stage. "
>>>
>>> My suggestion to publish LoI votes was based on the very low threshold for
>>> inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to the
>>> next stage we may be putting a team to a lot of work in preparing a full
>>> proposal when they have little chance of being successful, hence my
>>> suggestion.
>>>
>>> We could also address this by requiring an LoI to receive at least 20% of
>>> the votes cast by the committee at the first stage.
>>>
>>> Re the final vote on proposals, I think it is helpful to those who have not
>>> succeeded to understand how the voting worked.
>>>
>>> In general we as a community prefer transparency, I am surprised that on
>>> this important topic some would prefer the results of the conference
>>> committee votes to remain a secret. I vote against this suggestion
>>>
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

Peter Batty
I'm glad Darrell has raised this as I have felt a bit uncomfortable with the way that the first round of voting works. The general aim with introducing the two stage selection process was to avoid a team having to put in extensive work on a detailed proposal if they didn't have a realistic chance of being accepted. However, I think we also want to ensure reasonable competition to help maintain the high standards that we have for FOSS4G events, so unless there was some unusual situation I would generally hope to have at least two detailed proposals to evaluate.

The current single vote in the first round I find quite limiting. If I think that two out of three initial proposals are strong and I would like to see a more detailed version of both to evaluate, but that a third one is weak and not a realistic option, I have no way to express that with one vote. On a couple of occasions I have found myself voting tactically in the first round, for what is my second choice based on initial information, as I would like to try to make sure that we see detailed proposals from both of my top 2 preferences - which is an approach that is not satisfactory and may or may not work!

So I like Darrell's suggestion that for the first round, each committee member should vote yes or no on each initial proposal to indicate if they would like to see a more detailed proposal from that team. I think there would be various ways we could make the cut after that vote. It could be all teams greater than 50% as Darrell suggested. We could also specify a maximum number, say at most 3 teams based on who got the most votes. Or we could just go for the top 2 or 3 or whatever based on total votes without a specific threshold.

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <[hidden email]> wrote:
An alternative voting option is everyone gives an up or down vote on each proposal. Every proposal getting >50% (or whatever threshold) up votes proceeds to the next round.

d.



> On Sep 4, 2017, at 08:24, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2017 12:01 AM, Till Adams wrote:
>> I  think publishing the vote results and the min. number of votes to
>> pass the first threshold are two pair of shoes.
>
> I agree. On a lighter vein, it should be one pair of shoes.
>
>>
>> I like the idea of a min. of 3 votes, but I prefer not to publish the
>> results.
>>
>> Should we vote on the min. number of votes as well?
>
> I do not feel that vote on min. number of votes is necessary.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
>>
>> Till
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Am 04.09.2017 um 16:39 schrieb stevenfeldman:
>>> Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any stage. "
>>>
>>> My suggestion to publish LoI votes was based on the very low threshold for
>>> inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to the
>>> next stage we may be putting a team to a lot of work in preparing a full
>>> proposal when they have little chance of being successful, hence my
>>> suggestion.
>>>
>>> We could also address this by requiring an LoI to receive at least 20% of
>>> the votes cast by the committee at the first stage.
>>>
>>> Re the final vote on proposals, I think it is helpful to those who have not
>>> succeeded to understand how the voting worked.
>>>
>>> In general we as a community prefer transparency, I am surprised that on
>>> this important topic some would prefer the results of the conference
>>> committee votes to remain a secret. I vote against this suggestion
>>>
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishingLoIvotes"

Sanghee Shin
In reply to this post by delawen

Hi all,

 

Steven and Maria raised good points. How about compromising this by not releasing the results at 1st stage and publishing the votes number at final stage. I believe 1st stage is just qualifying stage and announcing any team will proceed to 2nd stage is enough without mentioning specific vote numbers at the 1st stage.

 

Cheers,

신상희
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com

 

보낸 사람: [hidden email]
보낸 날짜: 2017 9 4일 월요일 오후 11:45
받는 사람: [hidden email]
참조: [hidden email]
제목: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishingLoIvotes"

 

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:39 PM, stevenfeldman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any stage. "

> 

> My suggestion to publish LoI votes was based on the very low threshold for

> inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to the

> next stage we may be putting a team to a lot of work in preparing a full

> proposal when they have little chance of being successful, hence my

> suggestion.

 

Why little chance? A proposal may not seem good until it has been

fully described in detail. Not everyone is fluent in English, not

everyone is good at showing their ideas. Personally (as an interested

party this year) I don't care how many votes receive each proposal, as

all of them should try as hard as they could to get the better

proposal. In fact, I think no one should be discarded on the first

phase unless their first draft is so awful it is clear they cannot

work on a good proposal.

_______________________________________________

Conference_dev mailing list

[hidden email]

https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

 


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

Till Adams-3
In reply to this post by Peter Batty

Peter,

thanks for that input - I also like the idea.

Personnally I als prefer the situation, that there is a competition.

I call up a vote for this new, stage 1 voting system ;-)

Till




Am 04.09.2017 um 20:25 schrieb Peter Batty:
I'm glad Darrell has raised this as I have felt a bit uncomfortable with the way that the first round of voting works. The general aim with introducing the two stage selection process was to avoid a team having to put in extensive work on a detailed proposal if they didn't have a realistic chance of being accepted. However, I think we also want to ensure reasonable competition to help maintain the high standards that we have for FOSS4G events, so unless there was some unusual situation I would generally hope to have at least two detailed proposals to evaluate.

The current single vote in the first round I find quite limiting. If I think that two out of three initial proposals are strong and I would like to see a more detailed version of both to evaluate, but that a third one is weak and not a realistic option, I have no way to express that with one vote. On a couple of occasions I have found myself voting tactically in the first round, for what is my second choice based on initial information, as I would like to try to make sure that we see detailed proposals from both of my top 2 preferences - which is an approach that is not satisfactory and may or may not work!

So I like Darrell's suggestion that for the first round, each committee member should vote yes or no on each initial proposal to indicate if they would like to see a more detailed proposal from that team. I think there would be various ways we could make the cut after that vote. It could be all teams greater than 50% as Darrell suggested. We could also specify a maximum number, say at most 3 teams based on who got the most votes. Or we could just go for the top 2 or 3 or whatever based on total votes without a specific threshold.

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <[hidden email]> wrote:
An alternative voting option is everyone gives an up or down vote on each proposal. Every proposal getting >50% (or whatever threshold) up votes proceeds to the next round.

d.



> On Sep 4, 2017, at 08:24, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2017 12:01 AM, Till Adams wrote:
>> I  think publishing the vote results and the min. number of votes to
>> pass the first threshold are two pair of shoes.
>
> I agree. On a lighter vein, it should be one pair of shoes.
>
>>
>> I like the idea of a min. of 3 votes, but I prefer not to publish the
>> results.
>>
>> Should we vote on the min. number of votes as well?
>
> I do not feel that vote on min. number of votes is necessary.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
>>
>> Till
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Am 04.09.2017 um 16:39 schrieb stevenfeldman:
>>> Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any stage. "
>>>
>>> My suggestion to publish LoI votes was based on the very low threshold for
>>> inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to the
>>> next stage we may be putting a team to a lot of work in preparing a full
>>> proposal when they have little chance of being successful, hence my
>>> suggestion.
>>>
>>> We could also address this by requiring an LoI to receive at least 20% of
>>> the votes cast by the committee at the first stage.
>>>
>>> Re the final vote on proposals, I think it is helpful to those who have not
>>> succeeded to understand how the voting worked.
>>>
>>> In general we as a community prefer transparency, I am surprised that on
>>> this important topic some would prefer the results of the conference
>>> committee votes to remain a secret. I vote against this suggestion
>>>
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev



_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "alternative voting option for stage 1"

Till Adams-3
In reply to this post by Peter Batty
Hi,

I'd like to vote on the alternative voting option, as recently proposed
by Darrell and seconded by Peter:

Every CC member gives an up or down vote on each proposal. Every
proposal getting >50% up votes proceeds to the next round.


Please vote until 11th of september.


+1 from me.

Till

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "alternative voting option for stage 1"

stevenfeldman
+1

Steven
07958 924 101

> On 5 Sep 2017, at 07:36, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to vote on the alternative voting option, as recently proposed
> by Darrell and seconded by Peter:
>
> Every CC member gives an up or down vote on each proposal. Every
> proposal getting >50% up votes proceeds to the next round.
>
>
> Please vote until 11th of september.
>
>
> +1 from me.
>
> Till
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "alternative voting option for stage 1"

Peter Batty
+1

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1

Steven
07958 924 101

> On 5 Sep 2017, at 07:36, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to vote on the alternative voting option, as recently proposed
> by Darrell and seconded by Peter:
>
> Every CC member gives an up or down vote on each proposal. Every
> proposal getting >50% up votes proceeds to the next round.
>
>
> Please vote until 11th of september.
>
>
> +1 from me.
>
> Till
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "alternative voting option for stage 1"

Darrell Fuhriman
+1

On Sep 5, 2017, at 07:27, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:

+1

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1

Steven
07958 924 101

> On 5 Sep 2017, at 07:36, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to vote on the alternative voting option, as recently proposed
> by Darrell and seconded by Peter:
>
> Every CC member gives an up or down vote on each proposal. Every
> proposal getting >50% up votes proceeds to the next round.
>
>
> Please vote until 11th of september.
>
>
> +1 from me.
>
> Till
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
What is that status of this motion, "I would propose *not* to publish
the number of votes on LoI's as we did (presumably accidentally) for
the 2018 RfP"?  Failed? Passed? Withdrawn?

In my mind we are really in the discussion phase and should not yet be
voting.  Although, honestly, this email list gets the most discussion
participation once a vote is called, so maybe calling votes is the
only way to get wide participation in discussion.


Best regards, Eli

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Peter,
>
> thanks for that input - I also like the idea.
>
> Personnally I als prefer the situation, that there is a competition.
>
> I call up a vote for this new, stage 1 voting system ;-)
>
> Till
>
>
>
>
> Am 04.09.2017 um 20:25 schrieb Peter Batty:
>
> I'm glad Darrell has raised this as I have felt a bit uncomfortable with the
> way that the first round of voting works. The general aim with introducing
> the two stage selection process was to avoid a team having to put in
> extensive work on a detailed proposal if they didn't have a realistic chance
> of being accepted. However, I think we also want to ensure reasonable
> competition to help maintain the high standards that we have for FOSS4G
> events, so unless there was some unusual situation I would generally hope to
> have at least two detailed proposals to evaluate.
>
> The current single vote in the first round I find quite limiting. If I think
> that two out of three initial proposals are strong and I would like to see a
> more detailed version of both to evaluate, but that a third one is weak and
> not a realistic option, I have no way to express that with one vote. On a
> couple of occasions I have found myself voting tactically in the first
> round, for what is my second choice based on initial information, as I would
> like to try to make sure that we see detailed proposals from both of my top
> 2 preferences - which is an approach that is not satisfactory and may or may
> not work!
>
> So I like Darrell's suggestion that for the first round, each committee
> member should vote yes or no on each initial proposal to indicate if they
> would like to see a more detailed proposal from that team. I think there
> would be various ways we could make the cut after that vote. It could be all
> teams greater than 50% as Darrell suggested. We could also specify a maximum
> number, say at most 3 teams based on who got the most votes. Or we could
> just go for the top 2 or 3 or whatever based on total votes without a
> specific threshold.
>
> Cheers,
>     Peter.
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> An alternative voting option is everyone gives an up or down vote on each
>> proposal. Every proposal getting >50% (or whatever threshold) up votes
>> proceeds to the next round.
>>
>> d.
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 4, 2017, at 08:24, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 9/5/2017 12:01 AM, Till Adams wrote:
>> >> I  think publishing the vote results and the min. number of votes to
>> >> pass the first threshold are two pair of shoes.
>> >
>> > I agree. On a lighter vein, it should be one pair of shoes.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I like the idea of a min. of 3 votes, but I prefer not to publish the
>> >> results.
>> >>
>> >> Should we vote on the min. number of votes as well?
>> >
>> > I do not feel that vote on min. number of votes is necessary.
>> >
>> > Best
>> >
>> > Venka
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Till
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Am 04.09.2017 um 16:39 schrieb stevenfeldman:
>> >>> Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any
>> >>> stage. "
>> >>>
>> >>> My suggestion to publish LoI votes was based on the very low threshold
>> >>> for
>> >>> inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to
>> >>> the
>> >>> next stage we may be putting a team to a lot of work in preparing a
>> >>> full
>> >>> proposal when they have little chance of being successful, hence my
>> >>> suggestion.
>> >>>
>> >>> We could also address this by requiring an LoI to receive at least 20%
>> >>> of
>> >>> the votes cast by the committee at the first stage.
>> >>>
>> >>> Re the final vote on proposals, I think it is helpful to those who
>> >>> have not
>> >>> succeeded to understand how the voting worked.
>> >>>
>> >>> In general we as a community prefer transparency, I am surprised that
>> >>> on
>> >>> this important topic some would prefer the results of the conference
>> >>> committee votes to remain a secret. I vote against this suggestion
>> >>>
>> >>> Steven
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Sent from:
>> >>> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> >>> [hidden email]
>> >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Conference_dev mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Conference_dev mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "alternative voting option for stage 1"

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by Darrell Fuhriman
+1 Eli

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 07:27, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Steven
>> 07958 924 101
>>
>> > On 5 Sep 2017, at 07:36, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'd like to vote on the alternative voting option, as recently proposed
>> > by Darrell and seconded by Peter:
>> >
>> > Every CC member gives an up or down vote on each proposal. Every
>> > proposal getting >50% up votes proceeds to the next round.
>> >
>> >
>> > Please vote until 11th of september.
>> >
>> >
>> > +1 from me.
>> >
>> > Till
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Conference_dev mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

Till Adams-3
In reply to this post by Eli Adam
Eli,

that is my experience, call for a vote, ad discussion goes on. I think
we are all more or less of the same opinion, that voting results should
*not* be published. I also think, that happened accidentally last time.
So no worries here.

Till


Am 05.09.2017 um 17:41 schrieb Eli Adam:

> What is that status of this motion, "I would propose *not* to publish
> the number of votes on LoI's as we did (presumably accidentally) for
> the 2018 RfP"?  Failed? Passed? Withdrawn?
>
> In my mind we are really in the discussion phase and should not yet be
> voting.  Although, honestly, this email list gets the most discussion
> participation once a vote is called, so maybe calling votes is the
> only way to get wide participation in discussion.
>
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> thanks for that input - I also like the idea.
>>
>> Personnally I als prefer the situation, that there is a competition.
>>
>> I call up a vote for this new, stage 1 voting system ;-)
>>
>> Till
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 04.09.2017 um 20:25 schrieb Peter Batty:
>>
>> I'm glad Darrell has raised this as I have felt a bit uncomfortable with the
>> way that the first round of voting works. The general aim with introducing
>> the two stage selection process was to avoid a team having to put in
>> extensive work on a detailed proposal if they didn't have a realistic chance
>> of being accepted. However, I think we also want to ensure reasonable
>> competition to help maintain the high standards that we have for FOSS4G
>> events, so unless there was some unusual situation I would generally hope to
>> have at least two detailed proposals to evaluate.
>>
>> The current single vote in the first round I find quite limiting. If I think
>> that two out of three initial proposals are strong and I would like to see a
>> more detailed version of both to evaluate, but that a third one is weak and
>> not a realistic option, I have no way to express that with one vote. On a
>> couple of occasions I have found myself voting tactically in the first
>> round, for what is my second choice based on initial information, as I would
>> like to try to make sure that we see detailed proposals from both of my top
>> 2 preferences - which is an approach that is not satisfactory and may or may
>> not work!
>>
>> So I like Darrell's suggestion that for the first round, each committee
>> member should vote yes or no on each initial proposal to indicate if they
>> would like to see a more detailed proposal from that team. I think there
>> would be various ways we could make the cut after that vote. It could be all
>> teams greater than 50% as Darrell suggested. We could also specify a maximum
>> number, say at most 3 teams based on who got the most votes. Or we could
>> just go for the top 2 or 3 or whatever based on total votes without a
>> specific threshold.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>     Peter.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> An alternative voting option is everyone gives an up or down vote on each
>>> proposal. Every proposal getting >50% (or whatever threshold) up votes
>>> proceeds to the next round.
>>>
>>> d.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 08:24, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/5/2017 12:01 AM, Till Adams wrote:
>>>>> I  think publishing the vote results and the min. number of votes to
>>>>> pass the first threshold are two pair of shoes.
>>>> I agree. On a lighter vein, it should be one pair of shoes.
>>>>
>>>>> I like the idea of a min. of 3 votes, but I prefer not to publish the
>>>>> results.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we vote on the min. number of votes as well?
>>>> I do not feel that vote on min. number of votes is necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Venka
>>>>
>>>>> Till
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 04.09.2017 um 16:39 schrieb stevenfeldman:
>>>>>> Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any
>>>>>> stage. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My suggestion to publish LoI votes was based on the very low threshold
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> next stage we may be putting a team to a lot of work in preparing a
>>>>>> full
>>>>>> proposal when they have little chance of being successful, hence my
>>>>>> suggestion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could also address this by requiring an LoI to receive at least 20%
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the votes cast by the committee at the first stage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re the final vote on proposals, I think it is helpful to those who
>>>>>> have not
>>>>>> succeeded to understand how the voting worked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general we as a community prefer transparency, I am surprised that
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> this important topic some would prefer the results of the conference
>>>>>> committee votes to remain a secret. I vote against this suggestion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sent from:
>>>>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

Jachym Cepicky
Ok,

after reading all what was said, I give my +1 to not publishing votes and would like to see ongoing discussion about the other topic raised by Peter.

If I understand it correctly: Having 50% quota for the next round and having each committee member as many votes, as there are candidates (so you could put one vote to each proposal) would do the job?

J

st 6. 9. 2017 v 8:28 odesílatel Till Adams <[hidden email]> napsal:
Eli,

that is my experience, call for a vote, ad discussion goes on. I think
we are all more or less of the same opinion, that voting results should
*not* be published. I also think, that happened accidentally last time.
So no worries here.

Till


Am 05.09.2017 um 17:41 schrieb Eli Adam:
> What is that status of this motion, "I would propose *not* to publish
> the number of votes on LoI's as we did (presumably accidentally) for
> the 2018 RfP"?  Failed? Passed? Withdrawn?
>
> In my mind we are really in the discussion phase and should not yet be
> voting.  Although, honestly, this email list gets the most discussion
> participation once a vote is called, so maybe calling votes is the
> only way to get wide participation in discussion.
>
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> thanks for that input - I also like the idea.
>>
>> Personnally I als prefer the situation, that there is a competition.
>>
>> I call up a vote for this new, stage 1 voting system ;-)
>>
>> Till
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 04.09.2017 um 20:25 schrieb Peter Batty:
>>
>> I'm glad Darrell has raised this as I have felt a bit uncomfortable with the
>> way that the first round of voting works. The general aim with introducing
>> the two stage selection process was to avoid a team having to put in
>> extensive work on a detailed proposal if they didn't have a realistic chance
>> of being accepted. However, I think we also want to ensure reasonable
>> competition to help maintain the high standards that we have for FOSS4G
>> events, so unless there was some unusual situation I would generally hope to
>> have at least two detailed proposals to evaluate.
>>
>> The current single vote in the first round I find quite limiting. If I think
>> that two out of three initial proposals are strong and I would like to see a
>> more detailed version of both to evaluate, but that a third one is weak and
>> not a realistic option, I have no way to express that with one vote. On a
>> couple of occasions I have found myself voting tactically in the first
>> round, for what is my second choice based on initial information, as I would
>> like to try to make sure that we see detailed proposals from both of my top
>> 2 preferences - which is an approach that is not satisfactory and may or may
>> not work!
>>
>> So I like Darrell's suggestion that for the first round, each committee
>> member should vote yes or no on each initial proposal to indicate if they
>> would like to see a more detailed proposal from that team. I think there
>> would be various ways we could make the cut after that vote. It could be all
>> teams greater than 50% as Darrell suggested. We could also specify a maximum
>> number, say at most 3 teams based on who got the most votes. Or we could
>> just go for the top 2 or 3 or whatever based on total votes without a
>> specific threshold.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>     Peter.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> An alternative voting option is everyone gives an up or down vote on each
>>> proposal. Every proposal getting >50% (or whatever threshold) up votes
>>> proceeds to the next round.
>>>
>>> d.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 08:24, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/5/2017 12:01 AM, Till Adams wrote:
>>>>> I  think publishing the vote results and the min. number of votes to
>>>>> pass the first threshold are two pair of shoes.
>>>> I agree. On a lighter vein, it should be one pair of shoes.
>>>>
>>>>> I like the idea of a min. of 3 votes, but I prefer not to publish the
>>>>> results.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we vote on the min. number of votes as well?
>>>> I do not feel that vote on min. number of votes is necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Venka
>>>>
>>>>> Till
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 04.09.2017 um 16:39 schrieb stevenfeldman:
>>>>>> Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any
>>>>>> stage. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My suggestion to publish LoI votes was based on the very low threshold
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> next stage we may be putting a team to a lot of work in preparing a
>>>>>> full
>>>>>> proposal when they have little chance of being successful, hence my
>>>>>> suggestion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could also address this by requiring an LoI to receive at least 20%
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the votes cast by the committee at the first stage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re the final vote on proposals, I think it is helpful to those who
>>>>>> have not
>>>>>> succeeded to understand how the voting worked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general we as a community prefer transparency, I am surprised that
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> this important topic some would prefer the results of the conference
>>>>>> committee votes to remain a secret. I vote against this suggestion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sent from:
>>>>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
123