FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

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

FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

stevenfeldman
Conference Committee Members

The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether those answers are satisfactory.

The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the voting stage.

Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a vote even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against it but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed to the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then recommend to the board that we recommence the selection process.

If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating whether you want an IRC before voting.

Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
______
Steven



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

Re: FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

Peter Batty-2
I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound good Steven.

Cheers,
    Peter.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:

Conference Committee Members

The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether those answers are satisfactory.

The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the voting stage.

Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a vote even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against it but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed to the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then recommend to the board that we recommence the selection process.

If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating whether you want an IRC before voting.

Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
______
Steven


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

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

Re: FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

Till Adams-3
+1 from me.



Am 2016-12-05 14:14, schrieb Peter Batty:

> I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound
> good Steven.
>
> Cheers,
>  Peter.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email] [3]>
> wrote:
>
>> Conference Committee Members
>>
>> The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam
>> team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether
>> those answers are satisfactory.
>>
>> The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst
>> the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of
>> questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from
>> a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if
>> you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the
>> voting stage.
>>
>> Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a vote
>> even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My
>> suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to
>> Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is
>> anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against it
>> but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed to
>> the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the
>> event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then recommend
>> to the board that we recommence the selection process.
>>
>> If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of
>> bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either
>> way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating
>> whether you want an IRC before voting.
>>
>> Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
>>
>> ______
>> Steven
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email] [1]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [2]
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:[hidden email]
> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> [3] mailto:[hidden email]

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

Re: FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

Eli Adam
I don't need discussion time.

I prefer a vote with two options and would like “No to Dar es Salaam”
included as an option (or just change the question to "Should the
Conference Committee award FOSS4G 2018 to Dar es Salaam?" Yes/No).  I
guess I'm a stickler for formality which brings some bureaucracy.

For whoever is going to run this vote, we might want to have a quick
list discussion to see that we're all on the same page for how it will
run.

Best regards, Eli

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:26 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 from me.
>
>
>
> Am 2016-12-05 14:14, schrieb Peter Batty:
>>
>> I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound
>> good Steven.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Peter.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email] [3]>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Conference Committee Members
>>>
>>> The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam
>>> team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether
>>> those answers are satisfactory.
>>>
>>> The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst
>>> the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of
>>> questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from
>>> a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if
>>> you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the
>>> voting stage.
>>>
>>> Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a vote
>>> even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My
>>> suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to
>>> Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is
>>> anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against it
>>> but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed to
>>> the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the
>>> event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then recommend
>>> to the board that we recommence the selection process.
>>>
>>> If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of
>>> bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either
>>> way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating
>>> whether you want an IRC before voting.
>>>
>>> Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
>>>
>>> ______
>>> Steven
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email] [1]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [2]
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] mailto:[hidden email]
>> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> [3] mailto:[hidden email]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

tbonfort
I'm still available to run the election with the same rules as the first round, with the difference that I will privately email results to the voting members instead of the public list. Just let me know when to start.

Regards,
Thomas


On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't need discussion time.

I prefer a vote with two options and would like “No to Dar es Salaam”
included as an option (or just change the question to "Should the
Conference Committee award FOSS4G 2018 to Dar es Salaam?" Yes/No).  I
guess I'm a stickler for formality which brings some bureaucracy.

For whoever is going to run this vote, we might want to have a quick
list discussion to see that we're all on the same page for how it will
run.

Best regards, Eli

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:26 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
>
>
> Am 2016-12-05 14:14, schrieb Peter Batty:
>>
>> I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound
>> good Steven.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Peter.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email] [3]>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Conference Committee Members
>>>
>>> The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam
>>> team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether
>>> those answers are satisfactory.
>>>
>>> The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst
>>> the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of
>>> questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from
>>> a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if
>>> you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the
>>> voting stage.
>>>
>>> Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a vote
>>> even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My
>>> suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to
>>> Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is
>>> anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against it
>>> but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed to
>>> the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the
>>> event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then recommend
>>> to the board that we recommence the selection process.
>>>
>>> If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of
>>> bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either
>>> way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating
>>> whether you want an IRC before voting.
>>>
>>> Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
>>>
>>> ______
>>> Steven
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email] [1]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [2]
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] mailto:[hidden email]
>> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> [3] mailto:[hidden email]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

Re: FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

stevenfeldman
Thanks Thomas

Let’s wait until Wednesday in case anyone objects to my suggestion then I will confirm the voting procedure. 

Although I note the concerns expressed at the LoI stage voting being made public. I think it is important for the sake of transparency that we are open about the voting for or against the Dar proposal (open does not mean saying who voted, your anonymisation process worked well IMO)

Cheers and thanks for being our recording officer
______
Steven


On 5 Dec 2016, at 15:40, thomas bonfort <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm still available to run the election with the same rules as the first round, with the difference that I will privately email results to the voting members instead of the public list. Just let me know when to start.

Regards,
Thomas


On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't need discussion time.

I prefer a vote with two options and would like “No to Dar es Salaam”
included as an option (or just change the question to "Should the
Conference Committee award FOSS4G 2018 to Dar es Salaam?" Yes/No).  I
guess I'm a stickler for formality which brings some bureaucracy.

For whoever is going to run this vote, we might want to have a quick
list discussion to see that we're all on the same page for how it will
run.

Best regards, Eli

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:26 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
>
>
> Am 2016-12-05 14:14, schrieb Peter Batty:
>>
>> I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound
>> good Steven.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Peter.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email] [3]>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Conference Committee Members
>>>
>>> The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam
>>> team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether
>>> those answers are satisfactory.
>>>
>>> The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst
>>> the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of
>>> questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from
>>> a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if
>>> you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the
>>> voting stage.
>>>
>>> Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a vote
>>> even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My
>>> suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to
>>> Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is
>>> anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against it
>>> but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed to
>>> the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the
>>> event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then recommend
>>> to the board that we recommence the selection process.
>>>
>>> If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of
>>> bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either
>>> way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating
>>> whether you want an IRC before voting.
>>>
>>> Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
>>>
>>> ______
>>> Steven
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email] [1]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [2]
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] mailto:[hidden email]
>> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> [3] mailto:[hidden email]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


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

Re: FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

David Fawcett
I think that we can move on to voting, but I am OK with Steven's suggestion of waiting until Wednesday.

David.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks Thomas

Let’s wait until Wednesday in case anyone objects to my suggestion then I will confirm the voting procedure. 

Although I note the concerns expressed at the LoI stage voting being made public. I think it is important for the sake of transparency that we are open about the voting for or against the Dar proposal (open does not mean saying who voted, your anonymisation process worked well IMO)

Cheers and thanks for being our recording officer
______
Steven


On 5 Dec 2016, at 15:40, thomas bonfort <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm still available to run the election with the same rules as the first round, with the difference that I will privately email results to the voting members instead of the public list. Just let me know when to start.

Regards,
Thomas


On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't need discussion time.

I prefer a vote with two options and would like “No to Dar es Salaam”
included as an option (or just change the question to "Should the
Conference Committee award FOSS4G 2018 to Dar es Salaam?" Yes/No).  I
guess I'm a stickler for formality which brings some bureaucracy.

For whoever is going to run this vote, we might want to have a quick
list discussion to see that we're all on the same page for how it will
run.

Best regards, Eli

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:26 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
>
>
> Am 2016-12-05 14:14, schrieb Peter Batty:
>>
>> I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound
>> good Steven.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Peter.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email] [3]>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Conference Committee Members
>>>
>>> The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam
>>> team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether
>>> those answers are satisfactory.
>>>
>>> The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst
>>> the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of
>>> questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from
>>> a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if
>>> you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the
>>> voting stage.
>>>
>>> Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a vote
>>> even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My
>>> suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to
>>> Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is
>>> anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against it
>>> but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed to
>>> the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the
>>> event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then recommend
>>> to the board that we recommence the selection process.
>>>
>>> If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of
>>> bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either
>>> way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating
>>> whether you want an IRC before voting.
>>>
>>> Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
>>>
>>> ______
>>> Steven
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email] [1]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [2]
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] mailto:[hidden email]
>> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> [3] mailto:[hidden email]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


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


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

Re: FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

Eli Adam
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:23 AM, David Fawcett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think that we can move on to voting, but I am OK with Steven's suggestion
> of waiting until Wednesday.

This was also the intent of my message; I support following Steven's
suggested course of action.

Eli

>
> David.
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Thomas
>>
>> Let’s wait until Wednesday in case anyone objects to my suggestion then I
>> will confirm the voting procedure.
>>
>> Although I note the concerns expressed at the LoI stage voting being made
>> public. I think it is important for the sake of transparency that we are
>> open about the voting for or against the Dar proposal (open does not mean
>> saying who voted, your anonymisation process worked well IMO)
>>
>> Cheers and thanks for being our recording officer
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>>
>> On 5 Dec 2016, at 15:40, thomas bonfort <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm still available to run the election with the same rules as the first
>> round, with the difference that I will privately email results to the voting
>> members instead of the public list. Just let me know when to start.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't need discussion time.
>>>
>>> I prefer a vote with two options and would like “No to Dar es Salaam”
>>> included as an option (or just change the question to "Should the
>>> Conference Committee award FOSS4G 2018 to Dar es Salaam?" Yes/No).  I
>>> guess I'm a stickler for formality which brings some bureaucracy.
>>>
>>> For whoever is going to run this vote, we might want to have a quick
>>> list discussion to see that we're all on the same page for how it will
>>> run.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Eli
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:26 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > +1 from me.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Am 2016-12-05 14:14, schrieb Peter Batty:
>>> >>
>>> >> I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound
>>> >> good Steven.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >>  Peter.
>>> >>
>>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>>> >>
>>> >> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email] [3]>
>>> >>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Conference Committee Members
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam
>>> >>> team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether
>>> >>> those answers are satisfactory.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst
>>> >>> the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of
>>> >>> questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from
>>> >>> a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if
>>> >>> you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the
>>> >>> voting stage.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a vote
>>> >>> even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My
>>> >>> suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to
>>> >>> Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is
>>> >>> anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against it
>>> >>> but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed to
>>> >>> the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the
>>> >>> event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then recommend
>>> >>> to the board that we recommence the selection process.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of
>>> >>> bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either
>>> >>> way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating
>>> >>> whether you want an IRC before voting.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ______
>>> >>> Steven
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> >>> [hidden email] [1]
>>> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [2]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Links:
>>> >> ------
>>> >> [1] mailto:[hidden email]
>>> >> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> >> [3] mailto:[hidden email]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Conference_dev mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

David William Bitner-3
+1 to moving forward on the vote

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:23 AM, David Fawcett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think that we can move on to voting, but I am OK with Steven's suggestion
> of waiting until Wednesday.

This was also the intent of my message; I support following Steven's
suggested course of action.

Eli

>
> David.
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Thomas
>>
>> Let’s wait until Wednesday in case anyone objects to my suggestion then I
>> will confirm the voting procedure.
>>
>> Although I note the concerns expressed at the LoI stage voting being made
>> public. I think it is important for the sake of transparency that we are
>> open about the voting for or against the Dar proposal (open does not mean
>> saying who voted, your anonymisation process worked well IMO)
>>
>> Cheers and thanks for being our recording officer
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>>
>> On 5 Dec 2016, at 15:40, thomas bonfort <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm still available to run the election with the same rules as the first
>> round, with the difference that I will privately email results to the voting
>> members instead of the public list. Just let me know when to start.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't need discussion time.
>>>
>>> I prefer a vote with two options and would like “No to Dar es Salaam”
>>> included as an option (or just change the question to "Should the
>>> Conference Committee award FOSS4G 2018 to Dar es Salaam?" Yes/No).  I
>>> guess I'm a stickler for formality which brings some bureaucracy.
>>>
>>> For whoever is going to run this vote, we might want to have a quick
>>> list discussion to see that we're all on the same page for how it will
>>> run.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Eli
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:26 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > +1 from me.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Am 2016-12-05 14:14, schrieb Peter Batty:
>>> >>
>>> >> I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound
>>> >> good Steven.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >>  Peter.
>>> >>
>>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>>> >>
>>> >> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email] [3]>
>>> >>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Conference Committee Members
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam
>>> >>> team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether
>>> >>> those answers are satisfactory.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst
>>> >>> the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of
>>> >>> questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from
>>> >>> a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if
>>> >>> you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the
>>> >>> voting stage.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a vote
>>> >>> even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My
>>> >>> suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to
>>> >>> Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is
>>> >>> anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against it
>>> >>> but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed to
>>> >>> the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the
>>> >>> event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then recommend
>>> >>> to the board that we recommence the selection process.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of
>>> >>> bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either
>>> >>> way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating
>>> >>> whether you want an IRC before voting.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ______
>>> >>> Steven
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> >>> [hidden email] [1]
>>> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [2]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Links:
>>> >> ------
>>> >> [1] mailto:[hidden email]
>>> >> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> >> [3] mailto:[hidden email]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Conference_dev mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev



--
************************************
David William Bitner
dbSpatial LLC
612-424-9932

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

Re: Maria Brovelli abstention from voting Dar Es Salaam Proposal

Maria Antonia Brovelli
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman

Dear Steven, this is just to remind you that I will abstain, due to my involvement in the organization of Dar Es Salaam Conference (this my involvement was decided after the first vote).

Best regards.

Maria




----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)" http://www2.isprs.org/commissions/comm4/wg4.html


OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET 

Sol Katz Award 2015

 

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)

Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321

e-mail1: [hidden email][hidden email]

e-mail2: [hidden email]




 




Da: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> per conto di Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
Inviato: lunedì 5 dicembre 2016 17.10
A: thomas bonfort
Cc: OSGeo-Conf
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time
 
Thanks Thomas

Let’s wait until Wednesday in case anyone objects to my suggestion then I will confirm the voting procedure. 

Although I note the concerns expressed at the LoI stage voting being made public. I think it is important for the sake of transparency that we are open about the voting for or against the Dar proposal (open does not mean saying who voted, your anonymisation process worked well IMO)

Cheers and thanks for being our recording officer
______
Steven


On 5 Dec 2016, at 15:40, thomas bonfort <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm still available to run the election with the same rules as the first round, with the difference that I will privately email results to the voting members instead of the public list. Just let me know when to start.

Regards,
Thomas


On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't need discussion time.

I prefer a vote with two options and would like “No to Dar es Salaam”
included as an option (or just change the question to "Should the
Conference Committee award FOSS4G 2018 to Dar es Salaam?" Yes/No).  I
guess I'm a stickler for formality which brings some bureaucracy.

For whoever is going to run this vote, we might want to have a quick
list discussion to see that we're all on the same page for how it will
run.

Best regards, Eli

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:26 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
>
>
> Am 2016-12-05 14:14, schrieb Peter Batty:
>>
>> I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound
>> good Steven.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Peter.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email] [3]>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Conference Committee Members
>>>
>>> The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam
>>> team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether
>>> those answers are satisfactory.
>>>
>>> The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst
>>> the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of
>>> questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from
>>> a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if
>>> you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the
>>> voting stage.
>>>
>>> Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a vote
>>> even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My
>>> suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to
>>> Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is
>>> anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against it
>>> but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed to
>>> the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the
>>> event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then recommend
>>> to the board that we recommence the selection process.
>>>
>>> If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of
>>> bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either
>>> way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating
>>> whether you want an IRC before voting.
>>>
>>> Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
>>>
>>> ______
>>> Steven
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email] [1]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [2]
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] mailto:[hidden email]
>> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> [3] mailto:[hidden email]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


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

Re: FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

Sanghee Shin
In reply to this post by Peter Batty-2
+1 

Sanghee 


2016. 12. 5. 오후 10:14에 "Peter Batty" <[hidden email]>님이 작성:
I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound good Steven.

Cheers,
    Peter.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:

Conference Committee Members

The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether those answers are satisfactory.

The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the voting stage.

Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a vote even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against it but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed to the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then recommend to the board that we recommence the selection process.

If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating whether you want an IRC before voting.

Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
______
Steven


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

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


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

Re: FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
In reply to this post by David William Bitner-3
On 2016/12/06 4:32, David William Bitner wrote:
> +1 to moving forward on the vote

+1

Venka

>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:23 AM, David Fawcett <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> I think that we can move on to voting, but I am OK with Steven's
>> suggestion
>>> of waiting until Wednesday.
>>
>> This was also the intent of my message; I support following Steven's
>> suggested course of action.
>>
>> Eli
>>
>>>
>>> David.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Thomas
>>>>
>>>> Let’s wait until Wednesday in case anyone objects to my suggestion then
>> I
>>>> will confirm the voting procedure.
>>>>
>>>> Although I note the concerns expressed at the LoI stage voting being
>> made
>>>> public. I think it is important for the sake of transparency that we are
>>>> open about the voting for or against the Dar proposal (open does not
>> mean
>>>> saying who voted, your anonymisation process worked well IMO)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers and thanks for being our recording officer
>>>> ______
>>>> Steven
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5 Dec 2016, at 15:40, thomas bonfort <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm still available to run the election with the same rules as the first
>>>> round, with the difference that I will privately email results to the
>> voting
>>>> members instead of the public list. Just let me know when to start.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't need discussion time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer a vote with two options and would like “No to Dar es Salaam”
>>>>> included as an option (or just change the question to "Should the
>>>>> Conference Committee award FOSS4G 2018 to Dar es Salaam?" Yes/No).  I
>>>>> guess I'm a stickler for formality which brings some bureaucracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> For whoever is going to run this vote, we might want to have a quick
>>>>> list discussion to see that we're all on the same page for how it will
>>>>> run.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards, Eli
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:26 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> +1 from me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 2016-12-05 14:14, schrieb Peter Batty:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound
>>>>>>> good Steven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>  Peter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]
>> [3]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conference Committee Members
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam
>>>>>>>> team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether
>>>>>>>> those answers are satisfactory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst
>>>>>>>> the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of
>>>>>>>> questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from
>>>>>>>> a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if
>>>>>>>> you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the
>>>>>>>> voting stage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a
>> vote
>>>>>>>> even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My
>>>>>>>> suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to
>>>>>>>> Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is
>>>>>>>> anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against
>> it
>>>>>>>> but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed
>> to
>>>>>>>> the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the
>>>>>>>> event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then
>> recommend
>>>>>>>> to the board that we recommence the selection process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of
>>>>>>>> bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either
>>>>>>>> way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating
>>>>>>>> whether you want an IRC before voting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ______
>>>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> [hidden email] [1]
>>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [2]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Links:
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>> [1] mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>>>> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>>> [3] mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>

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

Re: FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

Jachym Cepicky
let's move

+1

J
Dne 6.12.2016 v 03:26 Venka napsal(a):

> On 2016/12/06 4:32, David William Bitner wrote:
> > +1 to moving forward on the vote
>
> +1
>
> Venka
>
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:23 AM, David Fawcett <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> I think that we can move on to voting, but I am OK with Steven's
> >> suggestion
> >>> of waiting until Wednesday.
> >>
> >> This was also the intent of my message; I support following Steven's
> >> suggested course of action.
> >>
> >> Eli
> >>
> >>>
> >>> David.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks Thomas
> >>>>
> >>>> Let’s wait until Wednesday in case anyone objects to my suggestion
> >>>> then
> >> I
> >>>> will confirm the voting procedure.
> >>>>
> >>>> Although I note the concerns expressed at the LoI stage voting being
> >> made
> >>>> public. I think it is important for the sake of transparency that
> >>>> we are
> >>>> open about the voting for or against the Dar proposal (open does not
> >> mean
> >>>> saying who voted, your anonymisation process worked well IMO)
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers and thanks for being our recording officer
> >>>> ______
> >>>> Steven
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5 Dec 2016, at 15:40, thomas bonfort <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm still available to run the election with the same rules as the
> >>>> first
> >>>> round, with the difference that I will privately email results to the
> >> voting
> >>>> members instead of the public list. Just let me know when to start.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Thomas
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't need discussion time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I prefer a vote with two options and would like “No to Dar es Salaam”
> >>>>> included as an option (or just change the question to "Should the
> >>>>> Conference Committee award FOSS4G 2018 to Dar es Salaam?" Yes/No).  I
> >>>>> guess I'm a stickler for formality which brings some bureaucracy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For whoever is going to run this vote, we might want to have a quick
> >>>>> list discussion to see that we're all on the same page for how it
> >>>>> will
> >>>>> run.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards, Eli
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:26 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>> +1 from me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 2016-12-05 14:14, schrieb Peter Batty:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound
> >>>>>>> good Steven.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>  Peter.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]
> >> [3]>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Conference Committee Members
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam
> >>>>>>>> team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether
> >>>>>>>> those answers are satisfactory.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The selection process now allows for a period of discussion
> >>>>>>>> amongst
> >>>>>>>> the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of
> >>>>>>>> questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained
> >>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>> a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if
> >>>>>>>> you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the
> >>>>>>>> voting stage.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a
> >> vote
> >>>>>>>> even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My
> >>>>>>>> suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to
> >>>>>>>> Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is
> >>>>>>>> anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against
> >> it
> >>>>>>>> but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed
> >> to
> >>>>>>>> the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then
> >> recommend
> >>>>>>>> to the board that we recommence the selection process.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of
> >>>>>>>> bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest.
> >>>>>>>> Either
> >>>>>>>> way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating
> >>>>>>>> whether you want an IRC before voting.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ______
> >>>>>>>> Steven
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>>>>>>> [hidden email] [1]
> >>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [2]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Links:
> >>>>>>> ------
> >>>>>>> [1] mailto:[hidden email]
> >>>>>>> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>>>>>> [3] mailto:[hidden email]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>>> [hidden email]
> >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>>> [hidden email]
> >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Conference_dev mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

--
Jachym Cepicky
e-mail: [hidden email]
twitter: @jachymc

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