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
|

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

Till Adams-3

Jachym,


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?

correct. Every CC member has one vote per LoI. Your choice is "yes" or "no" (or thumb up or down or however you call it ;-)).

I already called for a vote on this as well (se my mail from yesterday)

Till

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 Withdrawn?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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Jachym Cepicky
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
ugh,
here my +1 for the new voting system

J

út 5. 9. 2017 v 8:33 odesílatel Till Adams <[hidden email]> napsal:

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"

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by Jachym Cepicky
I vote -0 on the proposal, "I would propose *not* to publish the
number of votes on LoI's."

I generally favor transparency.  Not publishing in that past has
seemed to work as well.

I suspect with a new voting system [1], we are going to have all LoI's
receive 85-100%.  Many voting members in the past seemed to have
trouble deciding between multiple good LoI.  The full bids we receive
are of very high quality as well.

Best regards, Eli

[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2017-September/004464.html

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Jachym Cepicky <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Eli Adam
-0 For proposed thumbs up/down voting.

-0 For current 1 vote per voting member.

+1 For preferential voting.

Cameron

The thumbs up/down voting will help valuable proposals reach round 2,
which is good. But it is likely to remove the need for this first step
all together. Every city should be capable of putting together a
compelling 2 page proposal. Most of us voters are likely to provide
thumbs up for all proposals.

We then miss the point of stage 1 voting, which is to reduce duplicating
the large effort required to create a full proposal. The aim is to help
cities get early feedback on whether they are likely to win, and then
decide whether it is worth the effort.

I think a better means for achieving our voting goals is to use
Preferential (Ranked) voting [1], as used to vote in governments in many
democratic countries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting



On 6/9/17 1:42 am, Eli Adam wrote:

> +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

--
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
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"

Till Adams-3
Dear list,

last friday the vote on "alternative voting option for stage 1" ended.

As far as I can see, we got 6 votes (hope I did not accidentally delete
related emails):

We have 5 x "+1" votes and 1 "-0" vote

With his "-0" Cameron proposes to use preferential voting (I attached
his words below)

My suggestion is the following:

Regarding a "-0"-vote not as "-1" which is a blocker I'd like to propose
for now, that we test the thumps up/thumps down voting for the (already
started) 2019 process. This also in order not to keep potential bidders
in suspense.

For the call for vote on the LoI I can remember CC-members, not to
careless put their thumbs up and also should consider to decline their
thump, if they think, that the LoI has too many gaps.

For the 2020-process we can have a new round of discussions on that
topic, then we'll also have some experience with the now newly used
methof of "thumbs up/thumbs down"-vote.


If now nobody cries and replies with a "-1", the call for change of
voting on LoI is accepted and hereby changed for 2019 to a thumbs
up/thumbs down vote.


Till


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Camerons thoughts:

"We then miss the point of stage 1 voting, which is to reduce
duplicating the large effort required to create a full proposal. The aim
is to help cities get early feedback on whether they are likely to win,
and then decide whether it is worth the effort.

I think a better means for achieving our voting goals is to use
Preferential (Ranked) voting [1], as used to vote in governments in many
democratic countries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

"


Am 08.09.2017 um 23:35 schrieb Cameron Shorter:

> -0 For proposed thumbs up/down voting.
>
> -0 For current 1 vote per voting member.
>
> +1 For preferential voting.
>
> Cameron
>
> The thumbs up/down voting will help valuable proposals reach round 2,
> which is good. But it is likely to remove the need for this first step
> all together. Every city should be capable of putting together a
> compelling 2 page proposal. Most of us voters are likely to provide
> thumbs up for all proposals.
>
> We then miss the point of stage 1 voting, which is to reduce
> duplicating the large effort required to create a full proposal. The
> aim is to help cities get early feedback on whether they are likely to
> win, and then decide whether it is worth the effort.
>
> I think a better means for achieving our voting goals is to use
> Preferential (Ranked) voting [1], as used to vote in governments in
> many democratic countries.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting
>
>
>
> On 6/9/17 1:42 am, Eli Adam wrote:
>> +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
>

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

Call for vote on "publishing LoI votes"

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

there was a second vote on the topic above. Here the result is much more
unclear and the discussion around this in the end was the cause for the
vote on the new voting system.

Regarding the replies I can't give a clear view on the voting results,
but at least there was one vote against - combined with a new proposal.
This BTW also led to the new voting system on LoI we have now (see my
email before).

In general I would say, that the establishment of the new voting system
leads to a new situation regarding the issue on whether we should
publish the voting results or not.

When we look at the situation last year, where we published the 2018
results accidentally and we had 9 or 10 votes on Dar and only 2 on
Bangkok, it is clear, that this embarrassed the Bangkok team.
The situation this year is different; we can have 60% thumbs up on team
A and 80%  thumbs up on team B, which in the end should not discourage
team A really (perhaps it even encourages them on working harder on
their proposal).

Regarding all this, I'd suggest to publish the final results of the LoI
vote - without publishing names and single votes of each CC member.

Any other opinions on that?

Till



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

Re: Call for vote on "publishing LoI votes"

stevenfeldman
If the "thumbs up"/"thumbs down" voting has been adopted then there is no
need to publish the votes. We just need to state that bids X, Y & Z have
gone through to the next round with more than 50% "thumbs up", by default
any bids getting less than 50% "thumbs up" will not go through and there is
no need to emphasise that.

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: Call for vote on "publishing LoI votes"

Sanghee Shin

I also agree with Steven’s. I see little benefit to publish the votes if we adopted the "thumbs up"/"thumbs down" voting.

 

Cheers,

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

 

보낸 사람: [hidden email]
보낸 날짜: 2017 9 16일 토요일 오전 12:14
받는 사람: [hidden email]
제목: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Call for vote on "publishing LoI votes"

 

If the "thumbs up"/"thumbs down" voting has been adopted then there is no

need to publish the votes. We just need to state that bids X, Y & Z have

gone through to the next round with more than 50% "thumbs up", by default

any bids getting less than 50% "thumbs up" will not go through and there is

no need to emphasise that.

 

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
|

R: Call for vote on "publishing LoI votes"

Maria Antonia Brovelli
+1
Maria



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Sanghee Shin <[hidden email]>
Data: 16/09/17 07:55 (GMT+01:00)
A: stevenfeldman <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Call for vote on "publishing LoI votes"

I also agree with Steven’s. I see little benefit to publish the votes if we adopted the "thumbs up"/"thumbs down" voting.

 

Cheers,

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

 

보낸 사람: [hidden email]
보낸 날짜: 2017 9 16일 토요일 오전 12:14
받는 사람: [hidden email]
제목: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Call for vote on "publishing LoI votes"

 

If the "thumbs up"/"thumbs down" voting has been adopted then there is no

need to publish the votes. We just need to state that bids X, Y & Z have

gone through to the next round with more than 50% "thumbs up", by default

any bids getting less than 50% "thumbs up" will not go through and there is

no need to emphasise that.

 

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
123