Fwd: [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020

Vicky Vergara-2
I was not on the list so I am re-sending my mail

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[hidden email]>
Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020
To: <[hidden email]>


Your message has been rejected, probably because you are not
subscribed to the mailing list and the list's policy is to prohibit
non-members from posting to it.  If you think that your messages are
being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at
[hidden email].




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vicky Vergara <[hidden email]>
To: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>
Cc: Paul Ramsey <[hidden email]>
Bcc: 
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:56:53 -0600
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020
Hello Conference Committee members:

On recommendation of Paul Ramsey, and using his terminology

As member of the Halifax team:
I would like to make a "post-mortem" public request of:
Clarifying the details of the results of the second phase.
Based on the details of that result I would make or no make a "post-mortem" confidential request for feedback

Consider that:
From my point of view, 12-1 7-6 make a huge difference
As some results like 12-1 for me means: that we, Halifax team, did something really wrong (Would make the "post-mortem" confidential request).
As other results like 7-6 , for me means: that we, Halifax team, did a very good job, and the decision was tough.

Regards
Vicky (member of the Halifax team)

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:22 AM Paul Ramsey <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't think the numbers, whether 12-1 or 7-6 will be particularly explanatory. If you want a post-mortem to apply to future bids I'd suggest approaching committee members on a confidential basis for their feedback on their personal decision process... I imagine a pattern would emerge (I hope a pattern would emerge!) after a few conversations.

P.

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:33 AM Vasile Craciunescu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, traditionally, the results are not made public, only the winner is disclosed. 

Vasile

Sent from my mobile device

On 18 Dec 2018, at 17:25, Vicky Vergara <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ah, how much more? 12-1 still worries me

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:20 AM Vasile Craciunescu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Vicky,

The total number of votes is 13. Not all of them went to Calgary. They just got more votes than Halifax. 

Congratulations to both teams for the impressing proposals.

Best,
Vasile

Sent from my mobile device

On 18 Dec 2018, at 17:01, Vicky Vergara <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello all
This is Vicky from Halifax team.

Congratulations Calgary for the impressive win of 13 votes.

I wonder if someone can give some feed back on what we did so, so so wrong that we didn't get any vote?

Regards
Vicky




On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:34 AM María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 2:12 PM michael terner <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 on Til's fair and accurate response.

Indeed, it was a fair and open process, with only the vote being non-public but supervised by two respected CROs. As observed by Til, the one "issue" that arose on the recusal was addressed on the public Conference Dev mailing list. Actually, the only thing that is not open is the origin of the phrase used in Maria's first email today: "there has been some concerns raised." Where are these "concerns" coming from? When were they raised? Are they limited to the "recusal issue" from Venka? If not, what are the additional concerns?

No, no additional concerns. Just the one made on the conference dev  mailing list.
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board


--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44, 
81739 München, Germany

Vicky Vergara
Operations Research

eMail: vicky@georepublic.de
Web: https://georepublic.info

Tel: +49 (089) 4161 7698-1
Fax: +49 (089) 4161 7698-9

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl

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


--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44, 
81739 München, Germany

Vicky Vergara
Operations Research

eMail: vicky@georepublic.de
Web: https://georepublic.info

Tel: +49 (089) 4161 7698-1
Fax: +49 (089) 4161 7698-9

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl

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


--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44, 
81739 München, Germany

Vicky Vergara
Operations Research

eMail: vicky@georepublic.de
Web: https://georepublic.info

Tel: +49 (089) 4161 7698-1
Fax: +49 (089) 4161 7698-9

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl



--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44, 
81739 München, Germany

Vicky Vergara
Operations Research

eMail: vicky@georepublic.de
Web: https://georepublic.info

Tel: +49 (089) 4161 7698-1
Fax: +49 (089) 4161 7698-9

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl


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