Tweaked conference committee processes

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

Tweaked conference committee processes

Cameron Shorter
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference
committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka.
After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you
think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to
be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all),
and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a
separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2
weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement
that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to
try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee
members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the
conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more
people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2]
listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the
committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1]
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members




--
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
|

Re: Tweaked conference committee processes

Michael Terner
Kudos to this team for putting a concrete proposal on the table which aims to address many of the points that Steven raised in his initial proposal as well as some of the comments that were raised during lengthy discussion of that proposal. I don't have a vote but this appeals on a common sense basis and I think Item #5 under "Decisions" gets to the heart of what seemed to be the most contentious matter (i.e., how are "veto votes", or -1's addressed). There needs to be a smooth transition from "full consensus" to "majority vote" so that gridlock is avoided. This item seems to provide a clear framework for that transition.

I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT



On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members




--
Cameron Shorter
M <a href="tel:%2B61%20419%20142%20254" value="+61419142254" target="_blank">+61 419 142 254

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



--
Michael Terner
Executive Vice President
617-447-2468 Direct | 617-447-2400 Main
Applied Geographics, Inc.
24 School Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108

www.AppGeo.com
Celebrating our 25th Anniversary 

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or otherwise authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy, distribute, disclose or take any action based on the information contained in this e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this message and material in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics, Inc. (AppGeo).
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tweaked conference committee processes

David William Bitner-3
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
+1, great job with the compromises!

On Dec 26, 2016 6:28 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members




--
Cameron Shorter
M <a href="tel:%2B61%20419%20142%20254" value="+61419142254" target="_blank">+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: RFP tweaks

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Michael Terner

Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents (source in subversion)


On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT

-- 
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
|

Re: RFP tweaks

Eli Adam
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into
> the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but
> happy to see someone else take it on.
>
> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents
> (source in subversion)

I could help someone start on this when the time rolls around.  This
is the last rfp in svn,
https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018

>
>
> On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
>
> I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of
> "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not
> arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would
> respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the
> Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary,
> who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In
> the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first
> proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late
> submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before
> submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the
> "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and
> is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this:
> "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an
> intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the
> intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."


This could be a change worth trying.

Steven was inclined to make that revision and I resisted it some.
Part of bidding on FOSS4G is joining and participating in the email
list.  Sometimes it takes a little effort for that to happen.  Using
an intermediary would address some timing issues, however, it
introduces other issues.  One is that the intermediary is then
responsible for verifying the bid was received on time.  There is
always the potential for attachment, email, spam classification, and
other problems which then the intermediary is mixed up in.  It also
means that list traffic is replying to the intermediary instead of the
LOC representative.  The requirement to post to the list makes it
entirely apparent by checking the archives if your proposal has
posted, https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/, and the
burden for those requirements are entirely on the LOC.  It also forces
the LOC representative to be on the list.

I'm not sure that there is an advantage to reading another bid for the
same year before submitting.  To some extent, all bids are based on
some collection of bids from previous years and all share many
similarities.  Many keys aspects of a bid can't be changed in a day or
a few hours either.  The subsequent question period often draws
revisions in the bids to be more similar as well.  I suspect that
voting decisions are as much influenced by the question period as the
initial bid.  I'm not sure that the timing advantages outweigh the
intermediary disadvantages but am generally inclined to defer to more
recent FOSS4G events and the people doing the work.  I would support
trying this intermediary method if the person running the RFP process
is favorable to it.

Glad to see the refinement process at work each year.  Thanks for
working to improve the process.

Cheers, Eli


>
> Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
>
> MT
>
>
> --
> 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: RFP tweaks

stevenfeldman
Eli is correct. When we were revising the RfP process, I suggested proposals were sent to the CC chair rather than posted directly to the list, this was based on the concerns that Michael had previously expressed.

I am relieved that Eli persuaded me otherwise (the person steering the selection process has enough work to do without picking up this additional task). I tend to agree with Eli’s reasons for not implementing the suggested change but I would like to hear whether any other LOC’s over the last few years have any concerns in this regard
______
Steven


On 27 Dec 2016, at 21:15, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into
the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but
happy to see someone else take it on.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents
(source in subversion)

I could help someone start on this when the time rolls around.  This
is the last rfp in svn,
https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018



On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:

I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of
"FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not
arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would
respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the
Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary,
who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In
the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first
proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late
submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before
submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the
"public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and
is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this:
"Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an
intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the
intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."


This could be a change worth trying.

Steven was inclined to make that revision and I resisted it some.
Part of bidding on FOSS4G is joining and participating in the email
list.  Sometimes it takes a little effort for that to happen.  Using
an intermediary would address some timing issues, however, it
introduces other issues.  One is that the intermediary is then
responsible for verifying the bid was received on time.  There is
always the potential for attachment, email, spam classification, and
other problems which then the intermediary is mixed up in.  It also
means that list traffic is replying to the intermediary instead of the
LOC representative.  The requirement to post to the list makes it
entirely apparent by checking the archives if your proposal has
posted, https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/, and the
burden for those requirements are entirely on the LOC.  It also forces
the LOC representative to be on the list.

I'm not sure that there is an advantage to reading another bid for the
same year before submitting.  To some extent, all bids are based on
some collection of bids from previous years and all share many
similarities.  Many keys aspects of a bid can't be changed in a day or
a few hours either.  The subsequent question period often draws
revisions in the bids to be more similar as well.  I suspect that
voting decisions are as much influenced by the question period as the
initial bid.  I'm not sure that the timing advantages outweigh the
intermediary disadvantages but am generally inclined to defer to more
recent FOSS4G events and the people doing the work.  I would support
trying this intermediary method if the person running the RFP process
is favorable to it.

Glad to see the refinement process at work each year.  Thanks for
working to improve the process.

Cheers, Eli



Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT


--
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


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

Re: RFP tweaks

Darrell Fuhriman
I don't see the need to have an intermediary either. By the time we get to the submission point all the real work has been done.

d.

> On Dec 28, 2016, at 08:24, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Eli is correct. When we were revising the RfP process, I suggested proposals were sent to the CC chair rather than posted directly to the list, this was based on the concerns that Michael had previously expressed.
>
> I am relieved that Eli persuaded me otherwise (the person steering the selection process has enough work to do without picking up this additional task). I tend to agree with Eli’s reasons for not implementing the suggested change but I would like to hear whether any other LOC’s over the last few years have any concerns in this regard

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

Re: RFP tweaks

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman
I agree with the point made by Michael regarding the
submission of RFP's to an intermediary and making
them public after the passing of global deadline.

Best

Venka


On 12/29/2016 1:24 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:

> Eli is correct. When we were revising the RfP process, I suggested
> proposals were sent to the CC chair rather than posted directly to
> the list, this was based on the concerns that Michael had previously
> expressed.
>
> I am relieved that Eli persuaded me otherwise (the person steering
> the selection process has enough work to do without picking up this
> additional task). I tend to agree with Eli’s reasons for not
> implementing the suggested change but I would like to hear whether
> any other LOC’s over the last few years have any concerns in this
> regard ______ Steven
>
>
>> On 27 Dec 2016, at 21:15, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Cameron Shorter
>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text
>>> should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this
>>> document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents
>>> <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents>
>>>
>>>
(source in subversion)

>>
>> I could help someone start on this when the time rolls around.
>> This is the last rfp in svn,
>> https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018
>> <https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
>>>
>>> I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item
>>> #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the
>>> situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only
>>> one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final
>>> Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by
>>> the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would
>>> then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In
>>> the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the
>>> first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides
>>> the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier
>>> submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything
>>> untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process
>>> accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily
>>> remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final
>>> FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an
>>> intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and
>>> the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the
>>> deadline."
>>
>>
>> This could be a change worth trying.
>>
>> Steven was inclined to make that revision and I resisted it some.
>> Part of bidding on FOSS4G is joining and participating in the
>> email list.  Sometimes it takes a little effort for that to happen.
>> Using an intermediary would address some timing issues, however,
>> it introduces other issues.  One is that the intermediary is then
>> responsible for verifying the bid was received on time.  There is
>> always the potential for attachment, email, spam classification,
>> and other problems which then the intermediary is mixed up in.  It
>> also means that list traffic is replying to the intermediary
>> instead of the LOC representative.  The requirement to post to the
>> list makes it entirely apparent by checking the archives if your
>> proposal has posted,
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/
>> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/>, and the burden
>> for those requirements are entirely on the LOC.  It also forces the
>> LOC representative to be on the list.
>>
>> I'm not sure that there is an advantage to reading another bid for
>> the same year before submitting.  To some extent, all bids are
>> based on some collection of bids from previous years and all share
>> many similarities.  Many keys aspects of a bid can't be changed in
>> a day or a few hours either.  The subsequent question period often
>> draws revisions in the bids to be more similar as well.  I suspect
>> that voting decisions are as much influenced by the question period
>> as the initial bid.  I'm not sure that the timing advantages
>> outweigh the intermediary disadvantages but am generally inclined
>> to defer to more recent FOSS4G events and the people doing the
>> work.  I would support trying this intermediary method if the
>> person running the RFP process is favorable to it.
>>
>> Glad to see the refinement process at work each year.  Thanks for
>> working to improve the process.
>>
>> Cheers, Eli
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
>>>
>>> MT
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Cameron Shorter M +61 419 142 254
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Conference_dev
>>> mailing list [hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
>> _______________________________________________ Conference_dev
>> mailing list [hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> <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: RFP tweaks

Cameron Shorter

Before I put this to formal vote (on 10 Jan), are there any further comments on Conference Committee process?

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

I'm not planning to address Michael/Venka's comments in this text, as:
1. If it were to change, it should change in the RFP, not in this text
2. We have not yet reached rough consensus
(I'm not planning to take this on myself)


On 29/12/2016 11:21 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
I agree with the point made by Michael regarding the
submission of RFP's to an intermediary and making
them public after the passing of global deadline.

Best

Venka


On 12/29/2016 1:24 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
Eli is correct. When we were revising the RfP process, I suggested
proposals were sent to the CC chair rather than posted directly to
the list, this was based on the concerns that Michael had previously
expressed.

I am relieved that Eli persuaded me otherwise (the person steering
the selection process has enough work to do without picking up this
additional task). I tend to agree with Eli’s reasons for not
implementing the suggested change but I would like to hear whether
any other LOC’s over the last few years have any concerns in this
regard ______ Steven


On 27 Dec 2016, at 21:15, Eli Adam [hidden email] wrote:

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email] [hidden email]>
wrote:
Hi Michael,

That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text
should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this
document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.

[1]
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents
<https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents>


(source in subversion)

I could help someone start on this when the time rolls around.
This is the last rfp in svn,
https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018
<https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018>



On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:

I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item
#1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the
situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only
one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final
Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by
the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would
then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In
the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the
first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides
the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier
submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything
untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process
accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily
remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final
FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an
intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and
the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the
deadline."


This could be a change worth trying.

Steven was inclined to make that revision and I resisted it some.
Part of bidding on FOSS4G is joining and participating in the
email list.  Sometimes it takes a little effort for that to happen.
Using an intermediary would address some timing issues, however,
it introduces other issues.  One is that the intermediary is then
responsible for verifying the bid was received on time.  There is
always the potential for attachment, email, spam classification,
and other problems which then the intermediary is mixed up in.  It
also means that list traffic is replying to the intermediary
instead of the LOC representative.  The requirement to post to the
list makes it entirely apparent by checking the archives if your
proposal has posted,
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/
<https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/>, and the burden
for those requirements are entirely on the LOC.  It also forces the
LOC representative to be on the list.

I'm not sure that there is an advantage to reading another bid for
the same year before submitting.  To some extent, all bids are
based on some collection of bids from previous years and all share
many similarities.  Many keys aspects of a bid can't be changed in
a day or a few hours either.  The subsequent question period often
draws revisions in the bids to be more similar as well.  I suspect
that voting decisions are as much influenced by the question period
as the initial bid.  I'm not sure that the timing advantages
outweigh the intermediary disadvantages but am generally inclined
to defer to more recent FOSS4G events and the people doing the
work.  I would support trying this intermediary method if the
person running the RFP process is favorable to it.

Glad to see the refinement process at work each year.  Thanks for
working to improve the process.

Cheers, Eli



Good luck with the deliberations and voting...

MT


-- Cameron Shorter M +61 419 142 254


On Dec 26, 2016 6:28 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
-- 
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
|

Re: Tweaked conference committee processes

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by David William Bitner-3
Hi all,

I think that this discussion more properly belongs on this Conference
Committee process thread and RFP tweaks on the RFP tweaks thread.
Have Committee members read it over and thought about it and done all
the discussion they desire?

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Before I put this to formal vote (on 10 Jan), are there any further comments
> on Conference Committee process?
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>

Thanks for working on this Cameron.

Eli

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:30 AM, David William Bitner
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1, great job with the compromises!
>
> On Dec 26, 2016 6:28 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Conference committee,
>>
>> Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference
>> committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka.
>> After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].
>>
>> Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think
>> it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be
>> changed.
>>
>> Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all),
>> and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a
>> separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks,
>> till 10 Jan for people to comment).
>>
>> The changes include:
>>
>> * There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement
>> that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.
>>
>> * Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try
>> and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members
>> to vote.
>>
>> * A number of other minor tweaks to the text.
>>
>> Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference
>> committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the
>> committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.
>>
>> Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the
>> committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>>
>> [2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFP tweaks

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Before I put this to formal vote (on 10 Jan), are there any further comments
> on Conference Committee process?
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>
> I'm not planning to address Michael/Venka's comments in this text, as:
> 1. If it were to change, it should change in the RFP, not in this text

Yes, I agree that this topic belongs in the RFP not the Conference
Committee process.

> 2. We have not yet reached rough consensus
> (I'm not planning to take this on myself)

On the RFP tweaks, I'm willing to help and support the change if
someone else wants to lead the revisions, is (or has someone)
volunteering to be the intermediary, and the person running the RFP
process is agreeable to it.

Eli

>
>
>
> On 29/12/2016 11:21 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
>
> I agree with the point made by Michael regarding the
> submission of RFP's to an intermediary and making
> them public after the passing of global deadline.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
>
> On 12/29/2016 1:24 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>
> Eli is correct. When we were revising the RfP process, I suggested
> proposals were sent to the CC chair rather than posted directly to
> the list, this was based on the concerns that Michael had previously
> expressed.
>
> I am relieved that Eli persuaded me otherwise (the person steering
> the selection process has enough work to do without picking up this
> additional task). I tend to agree with Eli’s reasons for not
> implementing the suggested change but I would like to hear whether
> any other LOC’s over the last few years have any concerns in this
> regard ______ Steven
>
>
> On 27 Dec 2016, at 21:15, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Cameron Shorter
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text
> should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this
> document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents
> <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents>
>
>
> (source in subversion)
>
>
> I could help someone start on this when the time rolls around.
> This is the last rfp in svn,
> https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018
> <https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018>
>
>
>
> On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
>
> I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item
> #1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the
> situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only
> one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final
> Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by
> the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would
> then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In
> the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the
> first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides
> the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier
> submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything
> untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process
> accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very easily
> remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this: "Final
> FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an
> intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and
> the intermediary will post them publicly the day following the
> deadline."
>
>
>
> This could be a change worth trying.
>
> Steven was inclined to make that revision and I resisted it some.
> Part of bidding on FOSS4G is joining and participating in the
> email list.  Sometimes it takes a little effort for that to happen.
> Using an intermediary would address some timing issues, however,
> it introduces other issues.  One is that the intermediary is then
> responsible for verifying the bid was received on time.  There is
> always the potential for attachment, email, spam classification,
> and other problems which then the intermediary is mixed up in.  It
> also means that list traffic is replying to the intermediary
> instead of the LOC representative.  The requirement to post to the
> list makes it entirely apparent by checking the archives if your
> proposal has posted,
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/>, and the burden
> for those requirements are entirely on the LOC.  It also forces the
> LOC representative to be on the list.
>
> I'm not sure that there is an advantage to reading another bid for
> the same year before submitting.  To some extent, all bids are
> based on some collection of bids from previous years and all share
> many similarities.  Many keys aspects of a bid can't be changed in
> a day or a few hours either.  The subsequent question period often
> draws revisions in the bids to be more similar as well.  I suspect
> that voting decisions are as much influenced by the question period
> as the initial bid.  I'm not sure that the timing advantages
> outweigh the intermediary disadvantages but am generally inclined
> to defer to more recent FOSS4G events and the people doing the
> work.  I would support trying this intermediary method if the
> person running the RFP process is favorable to it.
>
> Glad to see the refinement process at work each year.  Thanks for
> working to improve the process.
>
> Cheers, Eli
>
>
>
> Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
>
> MT
>
>
> -- Cameron Shorter M +61 419 142 254
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2016 6:28 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> Conference committee,
>
> Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference
> committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka.
> After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].
>
> Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you think it
> is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to be changed.
>
> Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), and
> any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a separate
> email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 weeks, till 10
> Jan for people to comment).
>
> The changes include:
>
> * There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement that
> global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.
>
> * Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to try
> and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee members
> to vote.
>
> * A number of other minor tweaks to the text.
>
> Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the conference
> committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more people on the
> committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] listed.
>
> Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the
> committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>
> [2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
>
> --
> 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