Re: Final Result on RfP 2020

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

Re: Final Result on RfP 2020

stevenfeldman
Congratulations to Calgary, I'm already looking forward to FOSS4G 2020

Thanks to the Halifax team for a great proposal and all of your passion and thanks to Niagara Falls as well. 

Regards
Steven




On 13 Dec 2018, at 19:31, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear CC & OSGeo-community,

I just received the final results from our voting CRO's.

They have received 13 votes. Some voters noted that the quality of both proposals was excellent and that it was difficult to select.

The winning team hosting FOSS4G 2020 is

**Calgary**

Many thanks to the Halifax team for their great effort and great proposal, also many thanks to the Niagara Falls team, that also handed in a LoI.

I only can tell everybody, that regardless where the conference takes place, it is always a pleasure to join and it is always an event for the whole community!!

Finally I have one wish for christmas: Please support the winning team in order to have a great event in 2020 in Calgary!

And last but not least - many thanks to our CRO's as well!

Cheers, Till

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

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

Re: Final Result on RfP 2020

JonathanNeufeld

Hi All,

 

Thank you very much for placing your trust in Calgary, we are excited to welcome you in 2020!

I also want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the teams from both Halifax and Niagara – you put forward excellent proposals.

 

On behalf of the Calgary LOC I hope that everyone has a wonderful Christmas.

 

Cheers,

Jon

 

 

From: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Till Adams
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 12:31 PM
To: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>
Cc: osgeo-board List <[hidden email]>
Subject: [OSGeo-Conf] Final Result on RfP 2020

 

Dear CC & OSGeo-community,

I just received the final results from our voting CRO's.

They have received 13 votes. Some voters noted that the quality of both proposals was excellent and that it was difficult to select.

The winning team hosting FOSS4G 2020 is

**Calgary**

Many thanks to the Halifax team for their great effort and great proposal, also many thanks to the Niagara Falls team, that also handed in a LoI.

I only can tell everybody, that regardless where the conference takes place, it is always a pleasure to join and it is always an event for the whole community!!

Finally I have one wish for christmas: Please support the winning team in order to have a great event in 2020 in Calgary!

And last but not least - many thanks to our CRO's as well!

Cheers, Till


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

Re: Final Result on RfP 2020

Andy Anderson-3
Congratulations, Calgary!

Much as I like Halifax, I was kind of hoping the conference might end up in Alberta, having just seen this article today about the “mummified” dinosaur now on display at the nearby Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology! [1]

— Andy



On Dec 13, 2018, at 4:12 PM, Jonathan Neufeld <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi All,
 
Thank you very much for placing your trust in Calgary, we are excited to welcome you in 2020!
I also want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the teams from both Halifax and Niagara – you put forward excellent proposals.
 
On behalf of the Calgary LOC I hope that everyone has a wonderful Christmas.
 
Cheers,
Jon
 
 
From: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Till Adams
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 12:31 PM
To: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>
Cc: osgeo-board List <[hidden email]>
Subject: [OSGeo-Conf] Final Result on RfP 2020
 

Dear CC & OSGeo-community,

I just received the final results from our voting CRO's.

They have received 13 votes. Some voters noted that the quality of both proposals was excellent and that it was difficult to select.

The winning team hosting FOSS4G 2020 is 

**Calgary**

Many thanks to the Halifax team for their great effort and great proposal, also many thanks to the Niagara Falls team, that also handed in a LoI.

I only can tell everybody, that regardless where the conference takes place, it is always a pleasure to join and it is always an event for the whole community!!

Finally I have one wish for christmas: Please support the winning team in order to have a great event in 2020 in Calgary!

And last but not least - many thanks to our CRO's as well!

Cheers, 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

signature.asc (541 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Final Result on RfP 2020

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman
Also in the role of CRO with Arnulf, I confirm the results reported by Till.
Now the hard work begins for Calgary, and those from Halifax who move across to help.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 07:11, Arnulf Christl <[hidden email]> wrote:

In my role as CRO I confirm the result reported by Till. 13 votes were cast and the winning team for hosting FOSS4G 2020 is Calgary.

Thanks to all teams, the Conference Committee for taking time to read the proposals and to Till for organizing the elections.


Arnulf


Am 13.12.18 um 20:31 schrieb Till Adams:

Dear CC & OSGeo-community,

I just received the final results from our voting CRO's.

They have received 13 votes. Some voters noted that the quality of both proposals was excellent and that it was difficult to select.

The winning team hosting FOSS4G 2020 is

**Calgary**

Many thanks to the Halifax team for their great effort and great proposal, also many thanks to the Niagara Falls team, that also handed in a LoI.

I only can tell everybody, that regardless where the conference takes place, it is always a pleasure to join and it is always an event for the whole community!!

Finally I have one wish for christmas: Please support the winning team in order to have a great event in 2020 in Calgary!

And last but not least - many thanks to our CRO's as well!

Cheers, Till

-- 
http://metaspatial.net
Spatially enabling your business.


--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 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: Final Result on RfP 2020

michael terner-2
In reply to this post by Andy Anderson-3
Congratulations to all who participated in the competition to host FOSS4G 2020. The strength of all LOI's and particularly of the 2 proposals of the finalists is an indicator of the overall health and strength of this ecosystem. Indeed, it was a very difficult choice to make as it is clear both teams would have hosted a super event.

Again, congratulations to all, and big kudos to Calgary on winning the vote. See you in Alberta in 2020!

MT


On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 6:57 PM Andy Anderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Congratulations, Calgary!

Much as I like Halifax, I was kind of hoping the conference might end up in Alberta, having just seen this article today about the “mummified” dinosaur now on display at the nearby Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology! [1]

— Andy



On Dec 13, 2018, at 4:12 PM, Jonathan Neufeld <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi All,
 
Thank you very much for placing your trust in Calgary, we are excited to welcome you in 2020!
I also want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the teams from both Halifax and Niagara – you put forward excellent proposals.
 
On behalf of the Calgary LOC I hope that everyone has a wonderful Christmas.
 
Cheers,
Jon
 
 
From: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Till Adams
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 12:31 PM
To: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>
Cc: osgeo-board List <[hidden email]>
Subject: [OSGeo-Conf] Final Result on RfP 2020
 

Dear CC & OSGeo-community,

I just received the final results from our voting CRO's.

They have received 13 votes. Some voters noted that the quality of both proposals was excellent and that it was difficult to select.

The winning team hosting FOSS4G 2020 is 

**Calgary**

Many thanks to the Halifax team for their great effort and great proposal, also many thanks to the Niagara Falls team, that also handed in a LoI.

I only can tell everybody, that regardless where the conference takes place, it is always a pleasure to join and it is always an event for the whole community!!

Finally I have one wish for christmas: Please support the winning team in order to have a great event in 2020 in Calgary!

And last but not least - many thanks to our CRO's as well!

Cheers, 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


--
Michael Terner
(M) 978-631-6602

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

Re: Final Result on RfP 2020

Eli Adam
I second Michael's thoughts.  

Eli

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:26 PM michael terner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Congratulations to all who participated in the competition to host FOSS4G 2020. The strength of all LOI's and particularly of the 2 proposals of the finalists is an indicator of the overall health and strength of this ecosystem. Indeed, it was a very difficult choice to make as it is clear both teams would have hosted a super event.

Again, congratulations to all, and big kudos to Calgary on winning the vote. See you in Alberta in 2020!

MT


On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 6:57 PM Andy Anderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Congratulations, Calgary!

Much as I like Halifax, I was kind of hoping the conference might end up in Alberta, having just seen this article today about the “mummified” dinosaur now on display at the nearby Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology! [1]

— Andy



On Dec 13, 2018, at 4:12 PM, Jonathan Neufeld <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi All,
 
Thank you very much for placing your trust in Calgary, we are excited to welcome you in 2020!
I also want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the teams from both Halifax and Niagara – you put forward excellent proposals.
 
On behalf of the Calgary LOC I hope that everyone has a wonderful Christmas.
 
Cheers,
Jon
 
 
From: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Till Adams
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 12:31 PM
To: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>
Cc: osgeo-board List <[hidden email]>
Subject: [OSGeo-Conf] Final Result on RfP 2020
 

Dear CC & OSGeo-community,

I just received the final results from our voting CRO's.

They have received 13 votes. Some voters noted that the quality of both proposals was excellent and that it was difficult to select.

The winning team hosting FOSS4G 2020 is 

**Calgary**

Many thanks to the Halifax team for their great effort and great proposal, also many thanks to the Niagara Falls team, that also handed in a LoI.

I only can tell everybody, that regardless where the conference takes place, it is always a pleasure to join and it is always an event for the whole community!!

Finally I have one wish for christmas: Please support the winning team in order to have a great event in 2020 in Calgary!

And last but not least - many thanks to our CRO's as well!

Cheers, 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


--
Michael Terner
(M) 978-631-6602
_______________________________________________
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: Final Result on RfP 2020

Msilikale Msilanga
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman
Congratulations to the Calgary team

Best,

Msilikale

On 13 Dec 2018, at 4:31 PM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear CC & OSGeo-community,

I just received the final results from our voting CRO's.

They have received 13 votes. Some voters noted that the quality of both proposals was excellent and that it was difficult to select.

The winning team hosting FOSS4G 2020 is

**Calgary**

Many thanks to the Halifax team for their great effort and great proposal, also many thanks to the Niagara Falls team, that also handed in a LoI.

I only can tell everybody, that regardless where the conference takes place, it is always a pleasure to join and it is always an event for the whole community!!

Finally I have one wish for christmas: Please support the winning team in order to have a great event in 2020 in Calgary!

And last but not least - many thanks to our CRO's as well!

Cheers, Till

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


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

Re: [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020

Vasile Crăciunescu
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

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

Re: [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020

Vasile Crăciunescu
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020

Paul Ramsey
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

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

Re: [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020

Vicky Vergara-2
Hi Paul,
I wasnt subscribed to the list, so when you clicked the reply to all, the Conference-dev mailing list was omitted
I just subscribed and sent my request to the Conference Committee members
So I am sending forwarding to the Conference Dev list, in order to keep mail history complete.

Regards
Vicky

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:06 PM Paul Ramsey <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think the word I was actually reaching for was "debrief". After an RFP or a job interview it's expected that the candidates have an opportunity to ask for a debrief to understand what is going on.

I didn't vote, but if I had I would have voted for Calgary. As Eli noted there were no major show-stoppers on either side, both locations could have hosted successfully, based on the submitted bids, so it came down to relatively small things. 

- Calgary is better connected internationally, and in North America, with more direct flights, cheaper flights, to more destinations
- Calgary arrived with more sponsorship dollars already "in hand", so had a lower risk profile

P.


On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vicky Vergara <[hidden email]> wrote:
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020

Till Adams-3

Vicky,

it is agreed, that the final results will not be published. That's also the reason for having two independent CRO's - they count the votes and then send the name of the winning team to the Chair of the Conference committee.

This practice has worked well in the past and as long as I am involved, we did not have the situation, that there was a discussion after the final vote. Both, winning and not winning teams accepted the vote by the conference committee and personnally I do not understand, what the reason is in not doing so.

I know, that there was a tough decision made in 2014, but there was a tie in the CC decision. And obviously we did not have a tie in this year.

We can always get better and re-think our selection process for the future (thanks to Eli for his thoughts!), but starting a discussion on a voting procedure, that has already been done, feels a little like having a "Gschmäckle" ("taste") as we say in Germany.

The whole decision procedure was clear before the Rfp process started. As I understand it: By handing in a LoI and a proposal the teams agree on this procedure.

As already said, for me it's time to congratulate the winning team and care for having again a great event in 2020.

Till


Am 18.12.18 um 20:15 schrieb Vicky Vergara:
Hi Paul,
I wasnt subscribed to the list, so when you clicked the reply to all, the Conference-dev mailing list was omitted
I just subscribed and sent my request to the Conference Committee members
So I am sending forwarding to the Conference Dev list, in order to keep mail history complete.

Regards
Vicky

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:06 PM Paul Ramsey <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think the word I was actually reaching for was "debrief". After an RFP or a job interview it's expected that the candidates have an opportunity to ask for a debrief to understand what is going on.

I didn't vote, but if I had I would have voted for Calgary. As Eli noted there were no major show-stoppers on either side, both locations could have hosted successfully, based on the submitted bids, so it came down to relatively small things. 

- Calgary is better connected internationally, and in North America, with more direct flights, cheaper flights, to more destinations
- Calgary arrived with more sponsorship dollars already "in hand", so had a lower risk profile

P.


On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vicky Vergara <[hidden email]> wrote:
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

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

Re: [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020

stevenfeldman
Vicky

I am not going to say how I voted or to feedback on any specifics of either bid. However in response to your request I will share my methodology over the last 6 years of being one of the selection committee for FOSS4G (gosh it has been a long time doing this).

  1. I re-read the RfP to remind myself of the criteria that the CC has set for selection (each year we review the RfP docs and they evolve based on the community input)
  2. I then sit down and read through all of the proposals, making notes as I go on things that may not be clear, may be an area of concern, things that excite me
  3. I then pause to reflect on whether any of the proposals have “deal breakers” or similar. Assuming there aren’t I then go through the budgets with a fine tooth comb. I am a numbers guy and I am very aware of the importance of the surplus from FOSS4G to the overall finances of OSGeo and our ability to fund future activities.
  4. Now I can draft and post a list of questions to each bid team (checking that all teams have provided answers to each question in their proposals)
  5. I review the responses to my questions and those of other CC members.
  6. At this point I may have a clear favourite, if not I will draw up some kind of matrix and try and do a side by side comparison.
  7. I make a decision, I sit on it for a day or two, I vote.

What does that tell you about how I reach a decision? Not a lot! The reason being that my decision is influenced by a myriad of small factors, a view on the vision and and team behind a proposal, a sense of responsibility with regard to the financial impact on OSGeo and also my own experience of organising several large conferences, a FOSS4G and a couple of UK events. And those are just my criteria, 13 people voted in this selection process and not all of them will have been focussed on the same priorities as me.

If you are thinking of bidding for a global FOSS4G in Mexico in the future, my advice would be to approach one or two past chairs who have been selectors and ask them to advise/coach you in how to present the best possible proposal.

Seasons greetings
______
Steven


On 19 Dec 2018, at 07:23, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Vicky,

it is agreed, that the final results will not be published. That's also the reason for having two independent CRO's - they count the votes and then send the name of the winning team to the Chair of the Conference committee.

This practice has worked well in the past and as long as I am involved, we did not have the situation, that there was a discussion after the final vote. Both, winning and not winning teams accepted the vote by the conference committee and personnally I do not understand, what the reason is in not doing so.

I know, that there was a tough decision made in 2014, but there was a tie in the CC decision. And obviously we did not have a tie in this year.

We can always get better and re-think our selection process for the future (thanks to Eli for his thoughts!), but starting a discussion on a voting procedure, that has already been done, feels a little like having a "Gschmäckle" ("taste") as we say in Germany.

The whole decision procedure was clear before the Rfp process started. As I understand it: By handing in a LoI and a proposal the teams agree on this procedure.

As already said, for me it's time to congratulate the winning team and care for having again a great event in 2020.

Till


Am 18.12.18 um 20:15 schrieb Vicky Vergara:
Hi Paul,
I wasnt subscribed to the list, so when you clicked the reply to all, the Conference-dev mailing list was omitted
I just subscribed and sent my request to the Conference Committee members
So I am sending forwarding to the Conference Dev list, in order to keep mail history complete.

Regards
Vicky

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:06 PM Paul Ramsey <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think the word I was actually reaching for was "debrief". After an RFP or a job interview it's expected that the candidates have an opportunity to ask for a debrief to understand what is going on.

I didn't vote, but if I had I would have voted for Calgary. As Eli noted there were no major show-stoppers on either side, both locations could have hosted successfully, based on the submitted bids, so it came down to relatively small things. 

- Calgary is better connected internationally, and in North America, with more direct flights, cheaper flights, to more destinations
- Calgary arrived with more sponsorship dollars already "in hand", so had a lower risk profile

P.


On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vicky Vergara <[hidden email]> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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: [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020

Vicky Vergara-2
Thanks all for your responses.
With your responses I consider my questions as solved.
From my part there is no more comments on this mail thread .

And again, I say
Congratulations Calgary!

Regards
Vicky


On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 7:09 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Vicky

I am not going to say how I voted or to feedback on any specifics of either bid. However in response to your request I will share my methodology over the last 6 years of being one of the selection committee for FOSS4G (gosh it has been a long time doing this).

  1. I re-read the RfP to remind myself of the criteria that the CC has set for selection (each year we review the RfP docs and they evolve based on the community input)
  2. I then sit down and read through all of the proposals, making notes as I go on things that may not be clear, may be an area of concern, things that excite me
  3. I then pause to reflect on whether any of the proposals have “deal breakers” or similar. Assuming there aren’t I then go through the budgets with a fine tooth comb. I am a numbers guy and I am very aware of the importance of the surplus from FOSS4G to the overall finances of OSGeo and our ability to fund future activities.
  4. Now I can draft and post a list of questions to each bid team (checking that all teams have provided answers to each question in their proposals)
  5. I review the responses to my questions and those of other CC members.
  6. At this point I may have a clear favourite, if not I will draw up some kind of matrix and try and do a side by side comparison.
  7. I make a decision, I sit on it for a day or two, I vote.

What does that tell you about how I reach a decision? Not a lot! The reason being that my decision is influenced by a myriad of small factors, a view on the vision and and team behind a proposal, a sense of responsibility with regard to the financial impact on OSGeo and also my own experience of organising several large conferences, a FOSS4G and a couple of UK events. And those are just my criteria, 13 people voted in this selection process and not all of them will have been focussed on the same priorities as me.

If you are thinking of bidding for a global FOSS4G in Mexico in the future, my advice would be to approach one or two past chairs who have been selectors and ask them to advise/coach you in how to present the best possible proposal.

Seasons greetings
______
Steven


On 19 Dec 2018, at 07:23, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Vicky,

it is agreed, that the final results will not be published. That's also the reason for having two independent CRO's - they count the votes and then send the name of the winning team to the Chair of the Conference committee.

This practice has worked well in the past and as long as I am involved, we did not have the situation, that there was a discussion after the final vote. Both, winning and not winning teams accepted the vote by the conference committee and personnally I do not understand, what the reason is in not doing so.

I know, that there was a tough decision made in 2014, but there was a tie in the CC decision. And obviously we did not have a tie in this year.

We can always get better and re-think our selection process for the future (thanks to Eli for his thoughts!), but starting a discussion on a voting procedure, that has already been done, feels a little like having a "Gschmäckle" ("taste") as we say in Germany.

The whole decision procedure was clear before the Rfp process started. As I understand it: By handing in a LoI and a proposal the teams agree on this procedure.

As already said, for me it's time to congratulate the winning team and care for having again a great event in 2020.

Till


Am 18.12.18 um 20:15 schrieb Vicky Vergara:
Hi Paul,
I wasnt subscribed to the list, so when you clicked the reply to all, the Conference-dev mailing list was omitted
I just subscribed and sent my request to the Conference Committee members
So I am sending forwarding to the Conference Dev list, in order to keep mail history complete.

Regards
Vicky

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:06 PM Paul Ramsey <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think the word I was actually reaching for was "debrief". After an RFP or a job interview it's expected that the candidates have an opportunity to ask for a debrief to understand what is going on.

I didn't vote, but if I had I would have voted for Calgary. As Eli noted there were no major show-stoppers on either side, both locations could have hosted successfully, based on the submitted bids, so it came down to relatively small things. 

- Calgary is better connected internationally, and in North America, with more direct flights, cheaper flights, to more destinations
- Calgary arrived with more sponsorship dollars already "in hand", so had a lower risk profile

P.


On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vicky Vergara <[hidden email]> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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


--
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