Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of vote count?

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

Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of vote count?

Cameron Shorter

Conference committee,

Should vote counts for cities bidding for FOSS4G be shared, either publicly or privately?

This question is applicable for both stage 1 and stage 2 voting.

Options suggested so far:

1. Results of vote are publicly announced, number of votes for each city is not shared.

2. Additionally, each city is privately notified of votes for each city.

3. Additionally, votes for each city is shared publicly.

--

This question was raised while refining FOSS4G committee discussions. (Discussions were initially private to reduce email fatigue). Discussion so far is shared below.

I'll hold this thread open for two weeks for discussion, until 10 Jan, then raise a motion to be voted on.



On 24/12/2016 5:48 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Venka,

<snip>

With regards to publishing the results of FOSS4G votes, I suggest that this should be described in the FOSS4G RFP document rather than here. (We should only describe in one place, and it should be easily found by cities looking to vote).

I agree it is a topic worth discussing and suggest we should take the conversation to the public list. I assume that you'd all be ok with me sharing your responses on this thread publicly?

A 3rd option is to privately share number of votes for each city with the city, but publicly only declare successful bids.

<snip>

Cheers, Cameron


On 24/12/2016 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
Good point Eli

Open or closed voting or even a change in process should be for the CC to decide on a year by year basis

Regards
Steven


+44 (0) 7958 924101
Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Dec 2016, at 17:18, Eli Adam [hidden email] wrote:

Some people have argued that the bidding process is over-competitive
and leads to a lot of work for an unsuccessful bid (only one bid will
be successful) and that we would be better off with a different
selection method that doesn't have multiple LOCs putting a lot of work
into an unsuccessful bid.  I'm not sure that I see a clearly better
way while LOCs are still almost solely responsible for the success of
the conference.  Getting voted out in stage 1 could be better for
community morale than getting voted out in stage 2.

I'm see both sides to public and private votes.  I see both sides to
our current bidding method or another which doesn't have multiple LOCs
compete for one conference.  I'm not sure which is better and don't
have a strong opinion on either right now.  Both of these are leading
away from the current topic of the Conference Committee process.

Do we want to resolve the public or private nature of stage 1 and
stage 2 FOSS4G selection as part of the Conference Committee process?
Could that be left open and determined each year or at a later time?

Best regards, Eli


On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
[hidden email] wrote:
In my opinion we have to evaluate if those numbers are useful for the
proposers or can be demotivating. Just an example: if we have two proposals,
one very good and the second which appears excellent, the vote can happen to
be completely unbalanced toward the latter proposal and the former proposers
can become demotivated and sad because of the low rank reached. A proposal
is a common fruit of a local community, which proudly wants to be
protagonist of our global activity. Is the count useful for the community?
Are there other points of view that I'm not able to see?
Best!
Maria



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Eli Adam [hidden email]
Data: 23/12/16 17:23 (GMT+01:00)
A: Venkatesh Raghavan [hidden email]
Cc: Steven Feldman [hidden email], Cameron Shorter
[hidden email], Maria Antonia Brovelli
[hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: Revised conference committee processes

In my memory (I didn't bother to check the archives), stage 1 was not
revealed until recently.  However, stage 2 was often revealed because
it was a tie.  Even in cases that it wasn't a tie I seem to recall
stage 2 results sometimes being public.  I don't have a strong
preference either way, although see Venka's point for stage 1.

Best regards, Eli

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
[hidden email] wrote:
Steven,

On 12/23/2016 9:14 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:

Venka

I do not understand why we would want to keep the number of votes cast in
stage 1 and 2 secret? It doesn’t feel a very transparent way to determine
one of the most important decisions that OSGeo makes each year.
The number of votes received by bidding teams was never made public
until the 2018 bid (and there was no issue about that). One of the main
reason for not making the votes received by teams in stage-1 is
to keep the competition alive or the second 2.

You may recall that the chair of the Thai-team who withdrew from the stage
2 bid also suggested something to the similar effect.

Transparency in the FOSS4G selection process is necessary and has always
existed,
but I do not think that declaring number of votes is necessary and was
never
done
(except for the 2018 bid).

Best

Venka

[1]
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html


Can you explain?
______
Steven


On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Venkatesh Raghavan
[hidden email] wrote:

Hi Cameron and all,

<snip>

Regarding the FOSS4G selection, I would like to
suggest that the number of votes received by
each team should never be declared and only
know to the CRO. It is adequate to declare the
teams that are short-listed in Stage-1, without
mentioning which team got how many votes.
Also, the ultimate winner is stage-2 can be declared
without revealing the number of votes received.

Best

Venka

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

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

Fwd: Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of vote count?

massimiliano cannata-2


YES
In my opinion, and in line with the board election process, results should be public.

Maxi

2016-12-27 3:29 GMT+01:00 Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>:

Conference committee,

Should vote counts for cities bidding for FOSS4G be shared, either publicly or privately?

This question is applicable for both stage 1 and stage 2 voting.

Options suggested so far:

1. Results of vote are publicly announced, number of votes for each city is not shared.

2. Additionally, each city is privately notified of votes for each city.

3. Additionally, votes for each city is shared publicly.

--

This question was raised while refining FOSS4G committee discussions. (Discussions were initially private to reduce email fatigue). Discussion so far is shared below.

I'll hold this thread open for two weeks for discussion, until 10 Jan, then raise a motion to be voted on.



On 24/12/2016 5:48 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Venka,

<snip>

With regards to publishing the results of FOSS4G votes, I suggest that this should be described in the FOSS4G RFP document rather than here. (We should only describe in one place, and it should be easily found by cities looking to vote).

I agree it is a topic worth discussing and suggest we should take the conversation to the public list. I assume that you'd all be ok with me sharing your responses on this thread publicly?

A 3rd option is to privately share number of votes for each city with the city, but publicly only declare successful bids.

<snip>

Cheers, Cameron


On 24/12/2016 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
Good point Eli

Open or closed voting or even a change in process should be for the CC to decide on a year by year basis

Regards
Steven


+44 (0) 7958 924101
Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Dec 2016, at 17:18, Eli Adam [hidden email] wrote:

Some people have argued that the bidding process is over-competitive
and leads to a lot of work for an unsuccessful bid (only one bid will
be successful) and that we would be better off with a different
selection method that doesn't have multiple LOCs putting a lot of work
into an unsuccessful bid.  I'm not sure that I see a clearly better
way while LOCs are still almost solely responsible for the success of
the conference.  Getting voted out in stage 1 could be better for
community morale than getting voted out in stage 2.

I'm see both sides to public and private votes.  I see both sides to
our current bidding method or another which doesn't have multiple LOCs
compete for one conference.  I'm not sure which is better and don't
have a strong opinion on either right now.  Both of these are leading
away from the current topic of the Conference Committee process.

Do we want to resolve the public or private nature of stage 1 and
stage 2 FOSS4G selection as part of the Conference Committee process?
Could that be left open and determined each year or at a later time?

Best regards, Eli


On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
[hidden email] wrote:
In my opinion we have to evaluate if those numbers are useful for the
proposers or can be demotivating. Just an example: if we have two proposals,
one very good and the second which appears excellent, the vote can happen to
be completely unbalanced toward the latter proposal and the former proposers
can become demotivated and sad because of the low rank reached. A proposal
is a common fruit of a local community, which proudly wants to be
protagonist of our global activity. Is the count useful for the community?
Are there other points of view that I'm not able to see?
Best!
Maria



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Eli Adam [hidden email]
Data: 23/12/16 17:23 (GMT+01:00)
A: Venkatesh Raghavan [hidden email]
Cc: Steven Feldman [hidden email], Cameron Shorter
[hidden email], Maria Antonia Brovelli
[hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: Revised conference committee processes

In my memory (I didn't bother to check the archives), stage 1 was not
revealed until recently.  However, stage 2 was often revealed because
it was a tie.  Even in cases that it wasn't a tie I seem to recall
stage 2 results sometimes being public.  I don't have a strong
preference either way, although see Venka's point for stage 1.

Best regards, Eli

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
[hidden email] wrote:
Steven,

On 12/23/2016 9:14 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:

Venka

I do not understand why we would want to keep the number of votes cast in
stage 1 and 2 secret? It doesn’t feel a very transparent way to determine
one of the most important decisions that OSGeo makes each year.
The number of votes received by bidding teams was never made public
until the 2018 bid (and there was no issue about that). One of the main
reason for not making the votes received by teams in stage-1 is
to keep the competition alive or the second 2.

You may recall that the chair of the Thai-team who withdrew from the stage
2 bid also suggested something to the similar effect.

Transparency in the FOSS4G selection process is necessary and has always
existed,
but I do not think that declaring number of votes is necessary and was
never
done
(except for the 2018 bid).

Best

Venka

[1]
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html


Can you explain?
______
Steven


On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Venkatesh Raghavan
[hidden email] wrote:

Hi Cameron and all,

<snip>

Regarding the FOSS4G selection, I would like to
suggest that the number of votes received by
each team should never be declared and only
know to the CRO. It is adequate to declare the
teams that are short-listed in Stage-1, without
mentioning which team got how many votes.
Also, the ultimate winner is stage-2 can be declared
without revealing the number of votes received.

Best

Venka

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

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



--
Massimiliano Cannata

Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica

Responsabile settore Geomatica


Istituto scienze della Terra

Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design

Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana

Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio

Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14

Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09

[hidden email]

www.supsi.ch/ist




--
--

Dr. Eng. Massimiliano Cannata
Responsabile Area Geomatica
Istituto Scienze della Terra
Scuola Universitaria Professionale della Svizzera Italiana
Via Trevano, c.p. 72
CH-6952 Canobbio-Lugano
Tel: +41 (0)58 666 62 14
Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09

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

Re: Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of vote count?

stevenfeldman
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
I think votes should be shared publicly. Openness in our decision making process should be a guiding principle.

Perhaps the CC should review this as part of the preparation for the RfP each year. 
______
Steven


On 27 Dec 2016, at 02:29, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

Conference committee,

Should vote counts for cities bidding for FOSS4G be shared, either publicly or privately?

This question is applicable for both stage 1 and stage 2 voting.

Options suggested so far:

1. Results of vote are publicly announced, number of votes for each city is not shared.

2. Additionally, each city is privately notified of votes for each city.

3. Additionally, votes for each city is shared publicly.

--

This question was raised while refining FOSS4G committee discussions. (Discussions were initially private to reduce email fatigue). Discussion so far is shared below.

I'll hold this thread open for two weeks for discussion, until 10 Jan, then raise a motion to be voted on.



On 24/12/2016 5:48 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Venka,

<snip>

With regards to publishing the results of FOSS4G votes, I suggest that this should be described in the FOSS4G RFP document rather than here. (We should only describe in one place, and it should be easily found by cities looking to vote).

I agree it is a topic worth discussing and suggest we should take the conversation to the public list. I assume that you'd all be ok with me sharing your responses on this thread publicly?

A 3rd option is to privately share number of votes for each city with the city, but publicly only declare successful bids.

<snip>

Cheers, Cameron


On 24/12/2016 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
Good point Eli

Open or closed voting or even a change in process should be for the CC to decide on a year by year basis

Regards
Steven


+44 (0) 7958 924101
Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Dec 2016, at 17:18, Eli Adam [hidden email] wrote:

Some people have argued that the bidding process is over-competitive
and leads to a lot of work for an unsuccessful bid (only one bid will
be successful) and that we would be better off with a different
selection method that doesn't have multiple LOCs putting a lot of work
into an unsuccessful bid.  I'm not sure that I see a clearly better
way while LOCs are still almost solely responsible for the success of
the conference.  Getting voted out in stage 1 could be better for
community morale than getting voted out in stage 2.

I'm see both sides to public and private votes.  I see both sides to
our current bidding method or another which doesn't have multiple LOCs
compete for one conference.  I'm not sure which is better and don't
have a strong opinion on either right now.  Both of these are leading
away from the current topic of the Conference Committee process.

Do we want to resolve the public or private nature of stage 1 and
stage 2 FOSS4G selection as part of the Conference Committee process?
Could that be left open and determined each year or at a later time?

Best regards, Eli


On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
[hidden email] wrote:
In my opinion we have to evaluate if those numbers are useful for the
proposers or can be demotivating. Just an example: if we have two proposals,
one very good and the second which appears excellent, the vote can happen to
be completely unbalanced toward the latter proposal and the former proposers
can become demotivated and sad because of the low rank reached. A proposal
is a common fruit of a local community, which proudly wants to be
protagonist of our global activity. Is the count useful for the community?
Are there other points of view that I'm not able to see?
Best!
Maria



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Eli Adam [hidden email]
Data: 23/12/16 17:23 (GMT+01:00)
A: Venkatesh Raghavan [hidden email]
Cc: Steven Feldman [hidden email], Cameron Shorter
[hidden email], Maria Antonia Brovelli
[hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: Revised conference committee processes

In my memory (I didn't bother to check the archives), stage 1 was not
revealed until recently.  However, stage 2 was often revealed because
it was a tie.  Even in cases that it wasn't a tie I seem to recall
stage 2 results sometimes being public.  I don't have a strong
preference either way, although see Venka's point for stage 1.

Best regards, Eli

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
[hidden email] wrote:
Steven,

On 12/23/2016 9:14 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:

Venka

I do not understand why we would want to keep the number of votes cast in
stage 1 and 2 secret? It doesn’t feel a very transparent way to determine
one of the most important decisions that OSGeo makes each year.
The number of votes received by bidding teams was never made public
until the 2018 bid (and there was no issue about that). One of the main
reason for not making the votes received by teams in stage-1 is
to keep the competition alive or the second 2.

You may recall that the chair of the Thai-team who withdrew from the stage
2 bid also suggested something to the similar effect.

Transparency in the FOSS4G selection process is necessary and has always
existed,
but I do not think that declaring number of votes is necessary and was
never
done
(except for the 2018 bid).

Best

Venka

[1]
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html


Can you explain?
______
Steven


On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Venkatesh Raghavan
[hidden email] wrote:

Hi Cameron and all,

<snip>

Regarding the FOSS4G selection, I would like to
suggest that the number of votes received by
each team should never be declared and only
know to the CRO. It is adequate to declare the
teams that are short-listed in Stage-1, without
mentioning which team got how many votes.
Also, the ultimate winner is stage-2 can be declared
without revealing the number of votes received.

Best

Venka

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254
_______________________________________________
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: Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of votecount?

Sanghee Shin

Dear All,

 

I am also in favour of disclosing the votes results publically for both stage 1 and 2. This will increases transparency and will eliminate unnecessary misunderstanding around bidding process. Also this could be a part of RfP each year.

 

Kind regards,

신상희 드림
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com

 

보낸 사람: [hidden email]
보낸 날짜: 2016 12 28일 수요일 오후 5:29
받는 사람: [hidden email]
제목: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of votecount?

 

I think votes should be shared publicly. Openness in our decision making process should be a guiding principle.

 

Perhaps the CC should review this as part of the preparation for the RfP each year. 

______
Steven


 

On 27 Dec 2016, at 02:29, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Conference committee,

Should vote counts for cities bidding for FOSS4G be shared, either publicly or privately?

This question is applicable for both stage 1 and stage 2 voting.

Options suggested so far:

1. Results of vote are publicly announced, number of votes for each city is not shared.

2. Additionally, each city is privately notified of votes for each city.

3. Additionally, votes for each city is shared publicly.

--

This question was raised while refining FOSS4G committee discussions. (Discussions were initially private to reduce email fatigue). Discussion so far is shared below.

I'll hold this thread open for two weeks for discussion, until 10 Jan, then raise a motion to be voted on.

 

 

On 24/12/2016 5:48 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Venka,

<snip>

With regards to publishing the results of FOSS4G votes, I suggest that this should be described in the FOSS4G RFP document rather than here. (We should only describe in one place, and it should be easily found by cities looking to vote).

I agree it is a topic worth discussing and suggest we should take the conversation to the public list. I assume that you'd all be ok with me sharing your responses on this thread publicly?

A 3rd option is to privately share number of votes for each city with the city, but publicly only declare successful bids.

<snip>

Cheers, Cameron

 

On 24/12/2016 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:

Good point Eli
 
Open or closed voting or even a change in process should be for the CC to decide on a year by year basis
 
Regards
Steven
 
 
+44 (0) 7958 924101
Sent from my iPhone
 
On 23 Dec 2016, at 17:18, Eli Adam [hidden email] wrote:
 
Some people have argued that the bidding process is over-competitive
and leads to a lot of work for an unsuccessful bid (only one bid will
be successful) and that we would be better off with a different
selection method that doesn't have multiple LOCs putting a lot of work
into an unsuccessful bid.  I'm not sure that I see a clearly better
way while LOCs are still almost solely responsible for the success of
the conference.  Getting voted out in stage 1 could be better for
community morale than getting voted out in stage 2.
 
I'm see both sides to public and private votes.  I see both sides to
our current bidding method or another which doesn't have multiple LOCs
compete for one conference.  I'm not sure which is better and don't
have a strong opinion on either right now.  Both of these are leading
away from the current topic of the Conference Committee process.
 
Do we want to resolve the public or private nature of stage 1 and
stage 2 FOSS4G selection as part of the Conference Committee process?
Could that be left open and determined each year or at a later time?
 
Best regards, Eli
 
 
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
[hidden email] wrote:
In my opinion we have to evaluate if those numbers are useful for the
proposers or can be demotivating. Just an example: if we have two proposals,
one very good and the second which appears excellent, the vote can happen to
be completely unbalanced toward the latter proposal and the former proposers
can become demotivated and sad because of the low rank reached. A proposal
is a common fruit of a local community, which proudly wants to be
protagonist of our global activity. Is the count useful for the community?
Are there other points of view that I'm not able to see?
Best!
Maria
 
 
 
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
 
 
-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Eli Adam [hidden email]
Data: 23/12/16 17:23 (GMT+01:00)
A: Venkatesh Raghavan [hidden email]
Cc: Steven Feldman [hidden email], Cameron Shorter
[hidden email], Maria Antonia Brovelli
[hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: Revised conference committee processes
 
In my memory (I didn't bother to check the archives), stage 1 was not
revealed until recently.  However, stage 2 was often revealed because
it was a tie.  Even in cases that it wasn't a tie I seem to recall
stage 2 results sometimes being public.  I don't have a strong
preference either way, although see Venka's point for stage 1.
 
Best regards, Eli
 
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
[hidden email] wrote:
Steven,
 
On 12/23/2016 9:14 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
 
Venka
 
I do not understand why we would want to keep the number of votes cast in
stage 1 and 2 secret? It doesnt feel a very transparent way to determine
one of the most important decisions that OSGeo makes each year.
The number of votes received by bidding teams was never made public
until the 2018 bid (and there was no issue about that). One of the main
reason for not making the votes received by teams in stage-1 is
to keep the competition alive or the second 2.
 
You may recall that the chair of the Thai-team who withdrew from the stage
2 bid also suggested something to the similar effect.
 
Transparency in the FOSS4G selection process is necessary and has always
existed,
but I do not think that declaring number of votes is necessary and was
never
done
(except for the 2018 bid).
 
Best
 
Venka
 
[1]
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html
 
 
Can you explain?
______
Steven
 
 
On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Venkatesh Raghavan
[hidden email] wrote:
 
Hi Cameron and all,
 
<snip>
 
Regarding the FOSS4G selection, I would like to
suggest that the number of votes received by
each team should never be declared and only
know to the CRO. It is adequate to declare the
teams that are short-listed in Stage-1, without
mentioning which team got how many votes.
Also, the ultimate winner is stage-2 can be declared
without revealing the number of votes received.
 
Best
 
Venka



-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
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: Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of votecount?

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
I am not in favor of disclosing the number of votes
received by teams responding to RFP.

This is mainly to keep the competition alive.
This was the practice till our 2017 selection
process and we had not received any suggestion
on the contrary. The chair of the Thai team
for the 2018 RFP has also suggested that
number of votes need not be make public.

Best

Venka

On 12/29/2016 2:23 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I am also in favour of disclosing the votes results publically for both stage 1 and 2. This will increases transparency and will eliminate unnecessary misunderstanding around bidding process. Also this could be a part of RfP each year.
>
> Kind regards,
> 신상희 드림
> ---
> Shin, Sanghee
> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
> http://www.gaia3d.com
>
> 보낸 사람: Steven Feldman
> 보낸 날짜: 2016년 12월 28일 수요일 오후 5:29
> 받는 사람: conference
> 제목: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of votecount?
>
> I think votes should be shared publicly. Openness in our decision making process should be a guiding principle.
>
> Perhaps the CC should review this as part of the preparation for the RfP each year.
> ______
> Steven
>
>
>
> On 27 Dec 2016, at 02:29, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Conference committee,
> Should vote counts for cities bidding for FOSS4G be shared, either publicly or privately?
> This question is applicable for both stage 1 and stage 2 voting.
> Options suggested so far:
> 1. Results of vote are publicly announced, number of votes for each city is not shared.
> 2. Additionally, each city is privately notified of votes for each city.
> 3. Additionally, votes for each city is shared publicly.
> --
> This question was raised while refining FOSS4G committee discussions. (Discussions were initially private to reduce email fatigue). Discussion so far is shared below.
> I'll hold this thread open for two weeks for discussion, until 10 Jan, then raise a motion to be voted on.
>
>
> On 24/12/2016 5:48 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Venka,
> <snip>
> With regards to publishing the results of FOSS4G votes, I suggest that this should be described in the FOSS4G RFP document rather than here. (We should only describe in one place, and it should be easily found by cities looking to vote).
> I agree it is a topic worth discussing and suggest we should take the conversation to the public list. I assume that you'd all be ok with me sharing your responses on this thread publicly?
> A 3rd option is to privately share number of votes for each city with the city, but publicly only declare successful bids.
> <snip>
> Cheers, Cameron
>
> On 24/12/2016 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
> Good point Eli
>
> Open or closed voting or even a change in process should be for the CC to decide on a year by year basis
>
> Regards
> Steven
>
>
> +44 (0) 7958 924101
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 23 Dec 2016, at 17:18, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Some people have argued that the bidding process is over-competitive
> and leads to a lot of work for an unsuccessful bid (only one bid will
> be successful) and that we would be better off with a different
> selection method that doesn't have multiple LOCs putting a lot of work
> into an unsuccessful bid.  I'm not sure that I see a clearly better
> way while LOCs are still almost solely responsible for the success of
> the conference.  Getting voted out in stage 1 could be better for
> community morale than getting voted out in stage 2.
>
> I'm see both sides to public and private votes.  I see both sides to
> our current bidding method or another which doesn't have multiple LOCs
> compete for one conference.  I'm not sure which is better and don't
> have a strong opinion on either right now.  Both of these are leading
> away from the current topic of the Conference Committee process.
>
> Do we want to resolve the public or private nature of stage 1 and
> stage 2 FOSS4G selection as part of the Conference Committee process?
> Could that be left open and determined each year or at a later time?
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In my opinion we have to evaluate if those numbers are useful for the
> proposers or can be demotivating. Just an example: if we have two proposals,
> one very good and the second which appears excellent, the vote can happen to
> be completely unbalanced toward the latter proposal and the former proposers
> can become demotivated and sad because of the low rank reached. A proposal
> is a common fruit of a local community, which proudly wants to be
> protagonist of our global activity. Is the count useful for the community?
> Are there other points of view that I'm not able to see?
> Best!
> Maria
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
> Data: 23/12/16 17:23 (GMT+01:00)
> A: Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>, Cameron Shorter
> <[hidden email]>, Maria Antonia Brovelli
> <[hidden email]>
> Oggetto: Re: Revised conference committee processes
>
> In my memory (I didn't bother to check the archives), stage 1 was not
> revealed until recently.  However, stage 2 was often revealed because
> it was a tie.  Even in cases that it wasn't a tie I seem to recall
> stage 2 results sometimes being public.  I don't have a strong
> preference either way, although see Venka's point for stage 1.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Steven,
>
> On 12/23/2016 9:14 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>
> Venka
>
> I do not understand why we would want to keep the number of votes cast in
> stage 1 and 2 secret? It doesn’t feel a very transparent way to determine
> one of the most important decisions that OSGeo makes each year.
> The number of votes received by bidding teams was never made public
> until the 2018 bid (and there was no issue about that). One of the main
> reason for not making the votes received by teams in stage-1 is
> to keep the competition alive or the second 2.
>
> You may recall that the chair of the Thai-team who withdrew from the stage
> 2 bid also suggested something to the similar effect.
>
> Transparency in the FOSS4G selection process is necessary and has always
> existed,
> but I do not think that declaring number of votes is necessary and was
> never
> done
> (except for the 2018 bid).
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
> [1]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html
>
>
> Can you explain?
> ______
> Steven
>
>
> On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Venkatesh Raghavan
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Cameron and all,
>
> <snip>
>
> Regarding the FOSS4G selection, I would like to
> suggest that the number of votes received by
> each team should never be declared and only
> know to the CRO. It is adequate to declare the
> teams that are short-listed in Stage-1, without
> mentioning which team got how many votes.
> Also, the ultimate winner is stage-2 can be declared
> without revealing the number of votes received.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of votecount?

Maria Antonia Brovelli
1) If we wanted to provide the votes, it would be better to add (as we want also to help the proposers) a motivation in such a way that the proposers understand what they have to improve. The list of short individual anonymous motivations can be provided by the committee in such a way that the proposers can verify if and how they can improve the proposal.

2) I was thinking that probably it is the time of discussing again about the three options ( NA, Eu, the rest of the World). Why to be so rigid? At the end of the day we are weighting NA and Eu as the whole rest of the world. But in terms of population this is definitely wrong. Shall we start making new hypothesis about that subdivision?

Cheers,
Maria 

----------------------------------------------------

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

ISPRS WG IV/5 "Web and Cloud Based Geospatial Services and Applications"; OSGeo; GeoForAll Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET 

Sol Katz Award 2015

<a href="x-apple-data-detectors://1/0" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="address" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1/0">Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)

Tel. <a href="tel:+39-031-3327336" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1/1">+39-031-3327336 - Mob. <a href="tel:+39-328-0023867" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1/2">+39-328-0023867 - fax. <a href="tel:+39-031-3327321" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1/3">+39-031-3327321

e-mail1: [hidden email][hidden email]

e-mail2[hidden email]



Il giorno 29 dic 2016, alle ore 01:12, Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

I am not in favor of disclosing the number of votes
received by teams responding to RFP.

This is mainly to keep the competition alive.
This was the practice till our 2017 selection
process and we had not received any suggestion
on the contrary. The chair of the Thai team
for the 2018 RFP has also suggested that
number of votes need not be make public.

Best

Venka

On 12/29/2016 2:23 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
Dear All,

I am also in favour of disclosing the votes results publically for both stage 1 and 2. This will increases transparency and will eliminate unnecessary misunderstanding around bidding process. Also this could be a part of RfP each year.

Kind regards,
신상희 드림
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com

보낸 사람: Steven Feldman
보낸 날짜: 2016년 12월 28일 수요일 오후 5:29
받는 사람: conference
제목: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of votecount?

I think votes should be shared publicly. Openness in our decision making process should be a guiding principle.

Perhaps the CC should review this as part of the preparation for the RfP each year.
______
Steven



On 27 Dec 2016, at 02:29, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

Conference committee,
Should vote counts for cities bidding for FOSS4G be shared, either publicly or privately?
This question is applicable for both stage 1 and stage 2 voting.
Options suggested so far:
1. Results of vote are publicly announced, number of votes for each city is not shared.
2. Additionally, each city is privately notified of votes for each city.
3. Additionally, votes for each city is shared publicly.
--
This question was raised while refining FOSS4G committee discussions. (Discussions were initially private to reduce email fatigue). Discussion so far is shared below.
I'll hold this thread open for two weeks for discussion, until 10 Jan, then raise a motion to be voted on.


On 24/12/2016 5:48 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Venka,
<snip>
With regards to publishing the results of FOSS4G votes, I suggest that this should be described in the FOSS4G RFP document rather than here. (We should only describe in one place, and it should be easily found by cities looking to vote).
I agree it is a topic worth discussing and suggest we should take the conversation to the public list. I assume that you'd all be ok with me sharing your responses on this thread publicly?
A 3rd option is to privately share number of votes for each city with the city, but publicly only declare successful bids.
<snip>
Cheers, Cameron

On 24/12/2016 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
Good point Eli

Open or closed voting or even a change in process should be for the CC to decide on a year by year basis

Regards
Steven


+44 (0) 7958 924101
Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Dec 2016, at 17:18, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

Some people have argued that the bidding process is over-competitive
and leads to a lot of work for an unsuccessful bid (only one bid will
be successful) and that we would be better off with a different
selection method that doesn't have multiple LOCs putting a lot of work
into an unsuccessful bid.  I'm not sure that I see a clearly better
way while LOCs are still almost solely responsible for the success of
the conference.  Getting voted out in stage 1 could be better for
community morale than getting voted out in stage 2.

I'm see both sides to public and private votes.  I see both sides to
our current bidding method or another which doesn't have multiple LOCs
compete for one conference.  I'm not sure which is better and don't
have a strong opinion on either right now.  Both of these are leading
away from the current topic of the Conference Committee process.

Do we want to resolve the public or private nature of stage 1 and
stage 2 FOSS4G selection as part of the Conference Committee process?
Could that be left open and determined each year or at a later time?

Best regards, Eli


On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
<[hidden email]> wrote:
In my opinion we have to evaluate if those numbers are useful for the
proposers or can be demotivating. Just an example: if we have two proposals,
one very good and the second which appears excellent, the vote can happen to
be completely unbalanced toward the latter proposal and the former proposers
can become demotivated and sad because of the low rank reached. A proposal
is a common fruit of a local community, which proudly wants to be
protagonist of our global activity. Is the count useful for the community?
Are there other points of view that I'm not able to see?
Best!
Maria



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
Data: 23/12/16 17:23 (GMT+01:00)
A: Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]>
Cc: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]>, Maria Antonia Brovelli
<[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: Revised conference committee processes

In my memory (I didn't bother to check the archives), stage 1 was not
revealed until recently.  However, stage 2 was often revealed because
it was a tie.  Even in cases that it wasn't a tie I seem to recall
stage 2 results sometimes being public.  I don't have a strong
preference either way, although see Venka's point for stage 1.

Best regards, Eli

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
<[hidden email]> wrote:
Steven,

On 12/23/2016 9:14 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:

Venka

I do not understand why we would want to keep the number of votes cast in
stage 1 and 2 secret? It doesn’t feel a very transparent way to determine
one of the most important decisions that OSGeo makes each year.
The number of votes received by bidding teams was never made public
until the 2018 bid (and there was no issue about that). One of the main
reason for not making the votes received by teams in stage-1 is
to keep the competition alive or the second 2.

You may recall that the chair of the Thai-team who withdrew from the stage
2 bid also suggested something to the similar effect.

Transparency in the FOSS4G selection process is necessary and has always
existed,
but I do not think that declaring number of votes is necessary and was
never
done
(except for the 2018 bid).

Best

Venka

[1]
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html


Can you explain?
______
Steven


On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Venkatesh Raghavan
<[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Cameron and all,

<snip>

Regarding the FOSS4G selection, I would like to
suggest that the number of votes received by
each team should never be declared and only
know to the CRO. It is adequate to declare the
teams that are short-listed in Stage-1, without
mentioning which team got how many votes.
Also, the ultimate winner is stage-2 can be declared
without revealing the number of votes received.

Best

Venka




_______________________________________________
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: Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of votecount?

Eli Adam
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Polimi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 1) If we wanted to provide the votes, it would be better to add (as we want
> also to help the proposers) a motivation in such a way that the proposers
> understand what they have to improve. The list of short individual anonymous
> motivations can be provided by the committee in such a way that the
> proposers can verify if and how they can improve the proposal.

We could provide it non-anonymous as well.  Or we can provide an
opportunity for teams to discuss with Conference Committee members.

In my experience reading bids, we often have multiple very good bids
which could all be successful.  Sometimes the deciding factor for me
is geography, geography of recent conferences, experience of members
on the LOC, philosophical presentation of core OSGeo and FOSS4G
aspects, timing, or other minor aspects.  These are all things that
can't readily be 'improved' and typically, the bids were a very good
bid to begin with and don't necessarily need 'improvement'.


>
> 2) I was thinking that probably it is the time of discussing again about the
> three options ( NA, Eu, the rest of the World). Why to be so rigid? At the
> end of the day we are weighting NA and Eu as the whole rest of the world.
> But in terms of population this is definitely wrong. Shall we start making
> new hypothesis about that subdivision?

This discussion might be better on a separate thread since this thread
is about, "Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of vote
count?".  We don't want to hijack this current discussion thread or
short this potential future discussion thread of its proper attention.

Best regards, Eli

>
> Cheers,
> Maria
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/137617942@N02/
>
> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
> Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
> Politecnico di Milano
>
> ISPRS WG IV/5 "Web and Cloud Based Geospatial Services and Applications";
> OSGeo; GeoForAll 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]
>
> e-mail2: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> Il giorno 29 dic 2016, alle ore 01:12, Venkatesh Raghavan
> <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> I am not in favor of disclosing the number of votes
> received by teams responding to RFP.
>
> This is mainly to keep the competition alive.
> This was the practice till our 2017 selection
> process and we had not received any suggestion
> on the contrary. The chair of the Thai team
> for the 2018 RFP has also suggested that
> number of votes need not be make public.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
> On 12/29/2016 2:23 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
> I am also in favour of disclosing the votes results publically for both
> stage 1 and 2. This will increases transparency and will eliminate
> unnecessary misunderstanding around bidding process. Also this could be a
> part of RfP each year.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> 신상희 드림
>
> ---
>
> Shin, Sanghee
>
> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
>
> http://www.gaia3d.com
>
>
> 보낸 사람: Steven Feldman
>
> 보낸 날짜: 2016년 12월 28일 수요일 오후 5:29
>
> 받는 사람: conference
>
> 제목: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of
> votecount?
>
>
> I think votes should be shared publicly. Openness in our decision making
> process should be a guiding principle.
>
>
> Perhaps the CC should review this as part of the preparation for the RfP
> each year.
>
> ______
>
> Steven
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Dec 2016, at 02:29, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Conference committee,
>
> Should vote counts for cities bidding for FOSS4G be shared, either publicly
> or privately?
>
> This question is applicable for both stage 1 and stage 2 voting.
>
> Options suggested so far:
>
> 1. Results of vote are publicly announced, number of votes for each city is
> not shared.
>
> 2. Additionally, each city is privately notified of votes for each city.
>
> 3. Additionally, votes for each city is shared publicly.
>
> --
>
> This question was raised while refining FOSS4G committee discussions.
> (Discussions were initially private to reduce email fatigue). Discussion so
> far is shared below.
>
> I'll hold this thread open for two weeks for discussion, until 10 Jan, then
> raise a motion to be voted on.
>
>
>
> On 24/12/2016 5:48 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
> Venka,
>
> <snip>
>
> With regards to publishing the results of FOSS4G votes, I suggest that this
> should be described in the FOSS4G RFP document rather than here. (We should
> only describe in one place, and it should be easily found by cities looking
> to vote).
>
> I agree it is a topic worth discussing and suggest we should take the
> conversation to the public list. I assume that you'd all be ok with me
> sharing your responses on this thread publicly?
>
> A 3rd option is to privately share number of votes for each city with the
> city, but publicly only declare successful bids.
>
> <snip>
>
> Cheers, Cameron
>
>
> On 24/12/2016 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>
> Good point Eli
>
>
> Open or closed voting or even a change in process should be for the CC to
> decide on a year by year basis
>
>
> Regards
>
> Steven
>
>
>
> +44 (0) 7958 924101
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 23 Dec 2016, at 17:18, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Some people have argued that the bidding process is over-competitive
>
> and leads to a lot of work for an unsuccessful bid (only one bid will
>
> be successful) and that we would be better off with a different
>
> selection method that doesn't have multiple LOCs putting a lot of work
>
> into an unsuccessful bid.  I'm not sure that I see a clearly better
>
> way while LOCs are still almost solely responsible for the success of
>
> the conference.  Getting voted out in stage 1 could be better for
>
> community morale than getting voted out in stage 2.
>
>
> I'm see both sides to public and private votes.  I see both sides to
>
> our current bidding method or another which doesn't have multiple LOCs
>
> compete for one conference.  I'm not sure which is better and don't
>
> have a strong opinion on either right now.  Both of these are leading
>
> away from the current topic of the Conference Committee process.
>
>
> Do we want to resolve the public or private nature of stage 1 and
>
> stage 2 FOSS4G selection as part of the Conference Committee process?
>
> Could that be left open and determined each year or at a later time?
>
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
>
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> In my opinion we have to evaluate if those numbers are useful for the
>
> proposers or can be demotivating. Just an example: if we have two proposals,
>
> one very good and the second which appears excellent, the vote can happen to
>
> be completely unbalanced toward the latter proposal and the former proposers
>
> can become demotivated and sad because of the low rank reached. A proposal
>
> is a common fruit of a local community, which proudly wants to be
>
> protagonist of our global activity. Is the count useful for the community?
>
> Are there other points of view that I'm not able to see?
>
> Best!
>
> Maria
>
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
>
> Da: Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
>
> Data: 23/12/16 17:23 (GMT+01:00)
>
> A: Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]>
>
> Cc: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>, Cameron Shorter
>
> <[hidden email]>, Maria Antonia Brovelli
>
> <[hidden email]>
>
> Oggetto: Re: Revised conference committee processes
>
>
> In my memory (I didn't bother to check the archives), stage 1 was not
>
> revealed until recently.  However, stage 2 was often revealed because
>
> it was a tie.  Even in cases that it wasn't a tie I seem to recall
>
> stage 2 results sometimes being public.  I don't have a strong
>
> preference either way, although see Venka's point for stage 1.
>
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
>
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Steven,
>
>
> On 12/23/2016 9:14 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>
>
> Venka
>
>
> I do not understand why we would want to keep the number of votes cast in
>
> stage 1 and 2 secret? It doesn’t feel a very transparent way to determine
>
> one of the most important decisions that OSGeo makes each year.
>
> The number of votes received by bidding teams was never made public
>
> until the 2018 bid (and there was no issue about that). One of the main
>
> reason for not making the votes received by teams in stage-1 is
>
> to keep the competition alive or the second 2.
>
>
> You may recall that the chair of the Thai-team who withdrew from the stage
>
> 2 bid also suggested something to the similar effect.
>
>
> Transparency in the FOSS4G selection process is necessary and has always
>
> existed,
>
> but I do not think that declaring number of votes is necessary and was
>
> never
>
> done
>
> (except for the 2018 bid).
>
>
> Best
>
>
> Venka
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html
>
>
>
> Can you explain?
>
> ______
>
> Steven
>
>
>
> On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Venkatesh Raghavan
>
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Cameron and all,
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Regarding the FOSS4G selection, I would like to
>
> suggest that the number of votes received by
>
> each team should never be declared and only
>
> know to the CRO. It is adequate to declare the
>
> teams that are short-listed in Stage-1, without
>
> mentioning which team got how many votes.
>
> Also, the ultimate winner is stage-2 can be declared
>
> without revealing the number of votes received.
>
>
> Best
>
>
> Venka
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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: Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of votecount?

Maria Antonia Brovelli

You are definitely right about point 2. Thanks for the suggestion.

Better to wait the end of  this thread and then I will start the new one.

Cheers,

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: Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
Inviato: giovedì 29 dicembre 2016 17.14
A: Maria Antonia Brovelli
Cc: Venkatesh Raghavan; conference
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of votecount?
 
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Polimi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 1) If we wanted to provide the votes, it would be better to add (as we want
> also to help the proposers) a motivation in such a way that the proposers
> understand what they have to improve. The list of short individual anonymous
> motivations can be provided by the committee in such a way that the
> proposers can verify if and how they can improve the proposal.

We could provide it non-anonymous as well.  Or we can provide an
opportunity for teams to discuss with Conference Committee members.

In my experience reading bids, we often have multiple very good bids
which could all be successful.  Sometimes the deciding factor for me
is geography, geography of recent conferences, experience of members
on the LOC, philosophical presentation of core OSGeo and FOSS4G
aspects, timing, or other minor aspects.  These are all things that
can't readily be 'improved' and typically, the bids were a very good
bid to begin with and don't necessarily need 'improvement'.


>
> 2) I was thinking that probably it is the time of discussing again about the
> three options ( NA, Eu, the rest of the World). Why to be so rigid? At the
> end of the day we are weighting NA and Eu as the whole rest of the world.
> But in terms of population this is definitely wrong. Shall we start making
> new hypothesis about that subdivision?

This discussion might be better on a separate thread since this thread
is about, "Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of vote
count?".  We don't want to hijack this current discussion thread or
short this potential future discussion thread of its proper attention.

Best regards, Eli

>
> Cheers,
> Maria
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/137617942@N02/
>
> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
> Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
> Politecnico di Milano
>
> ISPRS WG IV/5 "Web and Cloud Based Geospatial Services and Applications";
> OSGeo; GeoForAll 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]
>
> e-mail2: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> Il giorno 29 dic 2016, alle ore 01:12, Venkatesh Raghavan
> <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> I am not in favor of disclosing the number of votes
> received by teams responding to RFP.
>
> This is mainly to keep the competition alive.
> This was the practice till our 2017 selection
> process and we had not received any suggestion
> on the contrary. The chair of the Thai team
> for the 2018 RFP has also suggested that
> number of votes need not be make public.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
> On 12/29/2016 2:23 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
> I am also in favour of disclosing the votes results publically for both
> stage 1 and 2. This will increases transparency and will eliminate
> unnecessary misunderstanding around bidding process. Also this could be a
> part of RfP each year.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> 신상희 드림
>
> ---
>
> Shin, Sanghee
>
> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
>
> http://www.gaia3d.com
>
>
> 보낸 사람: Steven Feldman
>
> 보낸 날짜: 2016년 12월 28일 수요일 오후 5:29
>
> 받는 사람: conference
>
> 제목: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of
> votecount?
>
>
> I think votes should be shared publicly. Openness in our decision making
> process should be a guiding principle.
>
>
> Perhaps the CC should review this as part of the preparation for the RfP
> each year.
>
> ______
>
> Steven
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Dec 2016, at 02:29, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Conference committee,
>
> Should vote counts for cities bidding for FOSS4G be shared, either publicly
> or privately?
>
> This question is applicable for both stage 1 and stage 2 voting.
>
> Options suggested so far:
>
> 1. Results of vote are publicly announced, number of votes for each city is
> not shared.
>
> 2. Additionally, each city is privately notified of votes for each city.
>
> 3. Additionally, votes for each city is shared publicly.
>
> --
>
> This question was raised while refining FOSS4G committee discussions.
> (Discussions were initially private to reduce email fatigue). Discussion so
> far is shared below.
>
> I'll hold this thread open for two weeks for discussion, until 10 Jan, then
> raise a motion to be voted on.
>
>
>
> On 24/12/2016 5:48 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
> Venka,
>
> <snip>
>
> With regards to publishing the results of FOSS4G votes, I suggest that this
> should be described in the FOSS4G RFP document rather than here. (We should
> only describe in one place, and it should be easily found by cities looking
> to vote).
>
> I agree it is a topic worth discussing and suggest we should take the
> conversation to the public list. I assume that you'd all be ok with me
> sharing your responses on this thread publicly?
>
> A 3rd option is to privately share number of votes for each city with the
> city, but publicly only declare successful bids.
>
> <snip>
>
> Cheers, Cameron
>
>
> On 24/12/2016 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>
> Good point Eli
>
>
> Open or closed voting or even a change in process should be for the CC to
> decide on a year by year basis
>
>
> Regards
>
> Steven
>
>
>
> +44 (0) 7958 924101
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 23 Dec 2016, at 17:18, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Some people have argued that the bidding process is over-competitive
>
> and leads to a lot of work for an unsuccessful bid (only one bid will
>
> be successful) and that we would be better off with a different
>
> selection method that doesn't have multiple LOCs putting a lot of work
>
> into an unsuccessful bid.  I'm not sure that I see a clearly better
>
> way while LOCs are still almost solely responsible for the success of
>
> the conference.  Getting voted out in stage 1 could be better for
>
> community morale than getting voted out in stage 2.
>
>
> I'm see both sides to public and private votes.  I see both sides to
>
> our current bidding method or another which doesn't have multiple LOCs
>
> compete for one conference.  I'm not sure which is better and don't
>
> have a strong opinion on either right now.  Both of these are leading
>
> away from the current topic of the Conference Committee process.
>
>
> Do we want to resolve the public or private nature of stage 1 and
>
> stage 2 FOSS4G selection as part of the Conference Committee process?
>
> Could that be left open and determined each year or at a later time?
>
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
>
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> In my opinion we have to evaluate if those numbers are useful for the
>
> proposers or can be demotivating. Just an example: if we have two proposals,
>
> one very good and the second which appears excellent, the vote can happen to
>
> be completely unbalanced toward the latter proposal and the former proposers
>
> can become demotivated and sad because of the low rank reached. A proposal
>
> is a common fruit of a local community, which proudly wants to be
>
> protagonist of our global activity. Is the count useful for the community?
>
> Are there other points of view that I'm not able to see?
>
> Best!
>
> Maria
>
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
>
> Da: Eli Adam <[hidden email]>
>
> Data: 23/12/16 17:23 (GMT+01:00)
>
> A: Venkatesh Raghavan <[hidden email]>
>
> Cc: Steven Feldman <[hidden email]>, Cameron Shorter
>
> <[hidden email]>, Maria Antonia Brovelli
>
> <[hidden email]>
>
> Oggetto: Re: Revised conference committee processes
>
>
> In my memory (I didn't bother to check the archives), stage 1 was not
>
> revealed until recently.  However, stage 2 was often revealed because
>
> it was a tie.  Even in cases that it wasn't a tie I seem to recall
>
> stage 2 results sometimes being public.  I don't have a strong
>
> preference either way, although see Venka's point for stage 1.
>
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
>
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Steven,
>
>
> On 12/23/2016 9:14 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>
>
> Venka
>
>
> I do not understand why we would want to keep the number of votes cast in
>
> stage 1 and 2 secret? It doesn’t feel a very transparent way to determine
>
> one of the most important decisions that OSGeo makes each year.
>
> The number of votes received by bidding teams was never made public
>
> until the 2018 bid (and there was no issue about that). One of the main
>
> reason for not making the votes received by teams in stage-1 is
>
> to keep the competition alive or the second 2.
>
>
> You may recall that the chair of the Thai-team who withdrew from the stage
>
> 2 bid also suggested something to the similar effect.
>
>
> Transparency in the FOSS4G selection process is necessary and has always
>
> existed,
>
> but I do not think that declaring number of votes is necessary and was
>
> never
>
> done
>
> (except for the 2018 bid).
>
>
> Best
>
>
> Venka
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html
>
>
>
> Can you explain?
>
> ______
>
> Steven
>
>
>
> On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Venkatesh Raghavan
>
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Cameron and all,
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Regarding the FOSS4G selection, I would like to
>
> suggest that the number of votes received by
>
> each team should never be declared and only
>
> know to the CRO. It is adequate to declare the
>
> teams that are short-listed in Stage-1, without
>
> mentioning which team got how many votes.
>
> Also, the ultimate winner is stage-2 can be declared
>
> without revealing the number of votes received.
>
>
> Best
>
>
> Venka
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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