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