*early* Preparation of RFP 2021

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

*early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Till Adams-3
Dear CC!

I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.

I added this WIKI page here:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process

Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
other errors.


I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to you.

Have a great day!

Till

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

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

stevenfeldman
Great work Till, thank you

I think there was an error in the opening line:

"FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.

I have changed to:

"FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.

Re timeline: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a little more time for proposal writing?

Voting: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the committee? 
Suggestion: Before the call process commences all committee members are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.

Cheers
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear CC!

I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.

I added this WIKI page here:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process

Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
other errors.


I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to you.

Have a great day!

Till

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


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

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

tadams
Dear Steven,

thanks for correction ;-).

I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.

Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:

> Great work Till, thank you
>
> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>
> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>
> I have changed to:
>
> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>
> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
> little more time for proposal writing?
>
> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
> committee? 
> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>
> Cheers
> ______
> Steven
>
> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>
> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
> newsletter
>
>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear CC!
>>
>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>
>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>
>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>> other errors.
>>
>>
>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>> you.
>>
>> Have a great day!
>>
>> Till
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Maria Antonia Brovelli
Dear Stefan, Till and All
I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee. 
Best,
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]>
Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Dear Steven,

thanks for correction ;-).

I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.

Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
> Great work Till, thank you
>
> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>
> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>
> I have changed to:
>
> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>
> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
> little more time for proposal writing?
>
> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
> committee? 
> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>
> Cheers
> ______
> Steven
>
> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>
> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
> newsletter
>
>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>> <[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear CC!
>>
>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>
>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>
>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>> other errors.
>>
>>
>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>> you.
>>
>> Have a great day!
>>
>> Till
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

stevenfeldman
Maria

Unfortunately that has not happened in the past (people removing themselves). 

I believe that my proposal is a pragmatic solution to avoid the potential for the committee being inquorate.
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 5 Jun 2019, at 10:44, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Stefan, Till and All
I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee. 
Best,
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]> 
Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00) 
A: [hidden email] 
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021 

Dear Steven,

thanks for correction ;-).

I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.

Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:

> Great work Till, thank you
> 
> I think there was an error in the opening line:
> 
> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
> 
> I have changed to:
> 
> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
> 
> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
> little more time for proposal writing?
> 
> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
> committee? 
> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
> 
> Cheers
> ______
> Steven
> 
> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
> 
> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
> newsletter
> 
>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>> <[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear CC!
>>
>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>
>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>
>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>> other errors.
>>
>>
>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>> you.
>>
>> Have a great day!
>>
>> Till
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> 

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


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

Re: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

tadams
In reply to this post by Maria Antonia Brovelli
Maria,

we can do the following (and that is what I did last year):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-> ask whether people will vote on RFP

[wait]

-> re-ask those, who did not reply

[wait]

-> propose those who do not want to vote AND those who did not reply, to
leave the committee.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Indeed, there are some people, that did not vote for the past years, but
is auto-removement really what we want to do in our community?


Till



Am 05.06.19 um 11:44 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:

> Dear Stefan, Till and All
> I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main
> commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time
> for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee. 
> Best,
> Maria 
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]>
> Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00)
> A: [hidden email]
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>
> Dear Steven,
>
> thanks for correction ;-).
>
> I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
> the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.
>
> Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
> advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
> that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> Great work Till, thank you
>>
>> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>>
>> I have changed to:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>>
>> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
>> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
>> little more time for proposal writing?
>>
>> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
>> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
>> committee? 
>> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
>> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
>> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
>> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
>> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>> newsletter
>>
>>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear CC!
>>>
>>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>>
>>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>
>>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>>> other errors.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Have a great day!
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mail: [hidden email]
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>
> terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
> Kölnstraße 99
> 53111 Bonn
>
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
> Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>
> Internet: www.terrestris.de <http://www.terrestris.de>
>
> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>
> Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
> Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>
> Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
> Homepage unter folgendem Link:
> https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Till Adams-3
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman

Steven

I adapted the time schedule and shortened the period between call and hand in of proposals for stage 1, which gives the teams 6 weeks for the full proposal.

I think we also could release the call earlier, but anyway - whoever wants to bid will carefully look for the call and normally will be prepared in advance anyway (or find the WIKI page earlier ;-) )

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 11:51 schrieb Steven Feldman:
Maria

Unfortunately that has not happened in the past (people removing themselves). 

I believe that my proposal is a pragmatic solution to avoid the potential for the committee being inquorate.
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 5 Jun 2019, at 10:44, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Stefan, Till and All
I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee. 
Best,
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]> 
Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00) 
A: [hidden email] 
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021 

Dear Steven,

thanks for correction ;-).

I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.

Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
> Great work Till, thank you
> 
> I think there was an error in the opening line:
> 
> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
> 
> I have changed to:
> 
> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
> 
> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
> little more time for proposal writing?
> 
> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
> committee? 
> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
> 
> Cheers
> ______
> Steven
> 
> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
> 
> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
> newsletter
> 
>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>> <[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear CC!
>>
>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>
>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>
>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>> other errors.
>>
>>
>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>> you.
>>
>> Have a great day!
>>
>> Till
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> 

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


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

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

R: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Maria Antonia Brovelli
In reply to this post by tadams
I believe that having a large committee of always silent people is useless. Better less, but active. 

After having proposed, if people don't show up, I propose to remove them. It could be not the first year, we can consider if this happens for two following years.

I like neither removement nor auto-removement but I don't see the point of being in a Committee if one person has not time for voting once a year.

Thanks a lot!
Best,
Maria 





Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]>
Data: 05/06/19 11:51 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R:  *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Maria,

we can do the following (and that is what I did last year):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-> ask whether people will vote on RFP

[wait]

-> re-ask those, who did not reply

[wait]

-> propose those who do not want to vote AND those who did not reply, to
leave the committee.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Indeed, there are some people, that did not vote for the past years, but
is auto-removement really what we want to do in our community?


Till



Am 05.06.19 um 11:44 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
> Dear Stefan, Till and All
> I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main
> commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time
> for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee. 
> Best,
> Maria 
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]>
> Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00)
> A: [hidden email]
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>
> Dear Steven,
>
> thanks for correction ;-).
>
> I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
> the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.
>
> Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
> advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
> that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> Great work Till, thank you
>>
>> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>>
>> I have changed to:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>>
>> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
>> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
>> little more time for proposal writing?
>>
>> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
>> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
>> committee? 
>> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
>> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
>> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
>> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
>> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>> newsletter
>>
>>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>> <[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear CC!
>>>
>>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>>
>>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>
>>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>>> other errors.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Have a great day!
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mail: [hidden email]
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>
> terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
> Kölnstraße 99
> 53111 Bonn
>
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
> Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>
> Internet: www.terrestris.de <http://www.terrestris.de>
>
> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>
> Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
> Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>
> Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
> Homepage unter folgendem Link:
> https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

Re: R: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Till Adams-3

Dear Maria,

I would suggest the following: We de-couple the topic of "non-active members" from "voters for RFP 2021".

For RFP 2021 I would proceed as Steven suggested.

For the "non-active-members"-topic, I would suggest, that you start a motion in CC. If the motion is accepted, we then can discuss - also based on the past RFP's - who is affected.

How about that?

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 12:36 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
I believe that having a large committee of always silent people is useless. Better less, but active. 

After having proposed, if people don't show up, I propose to remove them. It could be not the first year, we can consider if this happens for two following years.

I like neither removement nor auto-removement but I don't see the point of being in a Committee if one person has not time for voting once a year.

Thanks a lot!
Best,
Maria 





Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
Data: 05/06/19 11:51 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R:  *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Maria,

we can do the following (and that is what I did last year):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-> ask whether people will vote on RFP

[wait]

-> re-ask those, who did not reply

[wait]

-> propose those who do not want to vote AND those who did not reply, to
leave the committee.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Indeed, there are some people, that did not vote for the past years, but
is auto-removement really what we want to do in our community?


Till



Am 05.06.19 um 11:44 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
> Dear Stefan, Till and All
> I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main
> commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time
> for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee. 
> Best,
> Maria 
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
> Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00)
> A: [hidden email]
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>
> Dear Steven,
>
> thanks for correction ;-).
>
> I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
> the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.
>
> Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
> advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
> that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> Great work Till, thank you
>>
>> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>>
>> I have changed to:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>>
>> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
>> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
>> little more time for proposal writing?
>>
>> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
>> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
>> committee? 
>> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
>> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
>> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
>> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
>> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>> newsletter
>>
>>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>> <[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear CC!
>>>
>>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>>
>>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>
>>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>>> other errors.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Have a great day!
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mail: [hidden email]
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>
> terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
> Kölnstraße 99
> 53111 Bonn
>
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
> Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>
> Internet: www.terrestris.de <http://www.terrestris.de>
>
> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>
> Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
> Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>
> Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
> Homepage unter folgendem Link:
> https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

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

R: R: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Maria Antonia Brovelli
Dear Till
If I'm the only person who believe that this is a problem, I will survive also with this situation. In the CC I'm simply a member and I prefer to put my (small) free time on something where I have more responsabilities. 
I remember enough well the discussions of the past and I don't want to find myself again in similar not confortable situations. Thanks a lot and go ahead as you please.
Best
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]>
Data: 05/06/19 13:32 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Dear Maria,

I would suggest the following: We de-couple the topic of "non-active members" from "voters for RFP 2021".

For RFP 2021 I would proceed as Steven suggested.

For the "non-active-members"-topic, I would suggest, that you start a motion in CC. If the motion is accepted, we then can discuss - also based on the past RFP's - who is affected.

How about that?

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 12:36 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
I believe that having a large committee of always silent people is useless. Better less, but active. 

After having proposed, if people don't show up, I propose to remove them. It could be not the first year, we can consider if this happens for two following years.

I like neither removement nor auto-removement but I don't see the point of being in a Committee if one person has not time for voting once a year.

Thanks a lot!
Best,
Maria 





Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
Data: 05/06/19 11:51 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R:  *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Maria,

we can do the following (and that is what I did last year):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-> ask whether people will vote on RFP

[wait]

-> re-ask those, who did not reply

[wait]

-> propose those who do not want to vote AND those who did not reply, to
leave the committee.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Indeed, there are some people, that did not vote for the past years, but
is auto-removement really what we want to do in our community?


Till



Am 05.06.19 um 11:44 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
> Dear Stefan, Till and All
> I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main
> commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time
> for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee. 
> Best,
> Maria 
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
> Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00)
> A: [hidden email]
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>
> Dear Steven,
>
> thanks for correction ;-).
>
> I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
> the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.
>
> Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
> advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
> that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> Great work Till, thank you
>>
>> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>>
>> I have changed to:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>>
>> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
>> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
>> little more time for proposal writing?
>>
>> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
>> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
>> committee? 
>> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
>> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
>> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
>> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
>> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>> newsletter
>>
>>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>> <[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear CC!
>>>
>>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>>
>>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>
>>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>>> other errors.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Have a great day!
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mail: [hidden email]
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>
> terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
> Kölnstraße 99
> 53111 Bonn
>
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
> Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>
> Internet: www.terrestris.de <http://www.terrestris.de>
>
> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>
> Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
> Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>
> Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
> Homepage unter folgendem Link:
> https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

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

Re: R: R: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

delawen
Hi,

I also think this is a problem. Choosing the foss4g venue is one of the most relevant tasks of OSGeo because it decides where and how the community is going to grow that year.

Having not committed people on that decision is an issue. And I understand someone may not have time to review it some years, that's fine, we cannot be 100% always. Skipping some processes is normal. 

But people that can't take the time to review it year after year shows they are no longer interested/are disconnected/are too busy and we should acknowledge it and don't make them part of the decision. I don't think pressing them to participate is also good, this is a hard decision and should be taken by people who can and want to do it. 

Having people not voting leads to forcing other people to vote without really reviewing the proposals. Because we have to get the minimum quorum and we need votes, no matter if they didn't have the time to review.  I don't think it is a good idea to have people without the time to properly review the proposals feeling forced to vote.

 Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although they can ask questions like any other osgeo member). 

Cheers, 
The other Maria. 

El mié., 5 jun. 2019 14:16, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> escribió:
Dear Till
If I'm the only person who believe that this is a problem, I will survive also with this situation. In the CC I'm simply a member and I prefer to put my (small) free time on something where I have more responsabilities. 
I remember enough well the discussions of the past and I don't want to find myself again in similar not confortable situations. Thanks a lot and go ahead as you please.
Best
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]>
Data: 05/06/19 13:32 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Dear Maria,

I would suggest the following: We de-couple the topic of "non-active members" from "voters for RFP 2021".

For RFP 2021 I would proceed as Steven suggested.

For the "non-active-members"-topic, I would suggest, that you start a motion in CC. If the motion is accepted, we then can discuss - also based on the past RFP's - who is affected.

How about that?

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 12:36 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
I believe that having a large committee of always silent people is useless. Better less, but active. 

After having proposed, if people don't show up, I propose to remove them. It could be not the first year, we can consider if this happens for two following years.

I like neither removement nor auto-removement but I don't see the point of being in a Committee if one person has not time for voting once a year.

Thanks a lot!
Best,
Maria 





Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
Data: 05/06/19 11:51 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R:  *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Maria,

we can do the following (and that is what I did last year):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-> ask whether people will vote on RFP

[wait]

-> re-ask those, who did not reply

[wait]

-> propose those who do not want to vote AND those who did not reply, to
leave the committee.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Indeed, there are some people, that did not vote for the past years, but
is auto-removement really what we want to do in our community?


Till



Am 05.06.19 um 11:44 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
> Dear Stefan, Till and All
> I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main
> commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time
> for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee. 
> Best,
> Maria 
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
> Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00)
> A: [hidden email]
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>
> Dear Steven,
>
> thanks for correction ;-).
>
> I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
> the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.
>
> Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
> advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
> that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> Great work Till, thank you
>>
>> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>>
>> I have changed to:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>>
>> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
>> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
>> little more time for proposal writing?
>>
>> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
>> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
>> committee? 
>> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
>> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
>> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
>> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
>> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>> newsletter
>>
>>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>> <[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear CC!
>>>
>>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>>
>>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>
>>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>>> other errors.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Have a great day!
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mail: [hidden email]
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>
> terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
> Kölnstraße 99
> 53111 Bonn
>
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
> Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>
> Internet: www.terrestris.de <http://www.terrestris.de>
>
> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>
> Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
> Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>
> Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
> Homepage unter folgendem Link:
> https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

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

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by tadams
Hi all,

I made a small edit to add specifically include "Stage 1 polling
Period: 2019 October 05. to 2019 October 10."  I called it a polling
period instead of voting period since we get to vote for all the LOI
that we want.  It could be called voting too which would probably be
more consistent with our overall language.

The November 28th US Thanksgiving Holiday falls in "Stage 2 question
period: 2019 November 23. to 2019 December 06. " so there may be some
participation lull for the US participants.  It is a "other regions"
year and there is still adequate time so I think it is okay as is.
Just a comment.

Best regards, Eli

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 2:33 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Dear Steven,
>
> thanks for correction ;-).
>
> I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
> the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.
>
> Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
> advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
> that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
> > Great work Till, thank you
> >
> > I think there was an error in the opening line:
> >
> > "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
> >
> > I have changed to:
> >
> > "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
> >
> > Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
> > 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
> > little more time for proposal writing?
> >
> > *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
> > for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
> > committee?
> > *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
> > are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
> > call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
> > but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
> > the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
> >
> > Cheers
> > ______
> > Steven
> >
> > Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
> >
> > Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
> > newsletter
> >
> >> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear CC!
> >>
> >> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
> >>
> >> I added this WIKI page here:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
> >>
> >> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
> >> other errors.
> >>
> >>
> >> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
> >> you.
> >>
> >> Have a great day!
> >>
> >> Till
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Conference_dev mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mail: [hidden email]
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>
> terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
> Kölnstraße 99
> 53111 Bonn
>
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
> Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>
> Internet: www.terrestris.de
>
> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>
> Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
> Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>
> Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
> Homepage unter folgendem Link:
> https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Till Adams-3
Thanks Eli.

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 16:53 schrieb Eli Adam:

> Hi all,
>
> I made a small edit to add specifically include "Stage 1 polling
> Period: 2019 October 05. to 2019 October 10."  I called it a polling
> period instead of voting period since we get to vote for all the LOI
> that we want.  It could be called voting too which would probably be
> more consistent with our overall language.
>
> The November 28th US Thanksgiving Holiday falls in "Stage 2 question
> period: 2019 November 23. to 2019 December 06. " so there may be some
> participation lull for the US participants.  It is a "other regions"
> year and there is still adequate time so I think it is okay as is.
> Just a comment.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 2:33 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear Steven,
>>
>> thanks for correction ;-).
>>
>> I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
>> the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.
>>
>> Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
>> advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
>> that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>>
>> Till
>>
>>
>> Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>>> Great work Till, thank you
>>>
>>> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>>>
>>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>>>
>>> I have changed to:
>>>
>>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>>>
>>> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
>>> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
>>> little more time for proposal writing?
>>>
>>> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
>>> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
>>> committee?
>>> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
>>> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
>>> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
>>> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
>>> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> ______
>>> Steven
>>>
>>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>>
>>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>>> newsletter
>>>
>>>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear CC!
>>>>
>>>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>>>
>>>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>>
>>>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>>>> other errors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> Have a great day!
>>>>
>>>> Till
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
>> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Mail: [hidden email]
>> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>>
>> terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
>> Kölnstraße 99
>> 53111 Bonn
>>
>> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
>> Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>>
>> Internet: www.terrestris.de
>>
>> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>>
>> Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
>> Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>>
>> Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
>> Homepage unter folgendem Link:
>> https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

stevenfeldman
In reply to this post by delawen
+1 to that Maria AR

" Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although they can ask questions like any other osgeo member)” is just about the same as I suggested 
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 5 Jun 2019, at 14:50, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I also think this is a problem. Choosing the foss4g venue is one of the most relevant tasks of OSGeo because it decides where and how the community is going to grow that year.

Having not committed people on that decision is an issue. And I understand someone may not have time to review it some years, that's fine, we cannot be 100% always. Skipping some processes is normal. 

But people that can't take the time to review it year after year shows they are no longer interested/are disconnected/are too busy and we should acknowledge it and don't make them part of the decision. I don't think pressing them to participate is also good, this is a hard decision and should be taken by people who can and want to do it. 

Having people not voting leads to forcing other people to vote without really reviewing the proposals. Because we have to get the minimum quorum and we need votes, no matter if they didn't have the time to review.  I don't think it is a good idea to have people without the time to properly review the proposals feeling forced to vote.

 Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although they can ask questions like any other osgeo member). 

Cheers, 
The other Maria. 

El mié., 5 jun. 2019 14:16, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> escribió:
Dear Till
If I'm the only person who believe that this is a problem, I will survive also with this situation. In the CC I'm simply a member and I prefer to put my (small) free time on something where I have more responsabilities. 
I remember enough well the discussions of the past and I don't want to find myself again in similar not confortable situations. Thanks a lot and go ahead as you please.
Best
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]>
Data: 05/06/19 13:32 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Dear Maria,

I would suggest the following: We de-couple the topic of "non-active members" from "voters for RFP 2021".

For RFP 2021 I would proceed as Steven suggested.

For the "non-active-members"-topic, I would suggest, that you start a motion in CC. If the motion is accepted, we then can discuss - also based on the past RFP's - who is affected.

How about that?

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 12:36 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
I believe that having a large committee of always silent people is useless. Better less, but active. 

After having proposed, if people don't show up, I propose to remove them. It could be not the first year, we can consider if this happens for two following years.

I like neither removement nor auto-removement but I don't see the point of being in a Committee if one person has not time for voting once a year.

Thanks a lot!
Best,
Maria 





Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
Data: 05/06/19 11:51 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R:  *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Maria,

we can do the following (and that is what I did last year):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-> ask whether people will vote on RFP

[wait]

-> re-ask those, who did not reply

[wait]

-> propose those who do not want to vote AND those who did not reply, to
leave the committee.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Indeed, there are some people, that did not vote for the past years, but
is auto-removement really what we want to do in our community?


Till



Am 05.06.19 um 11:44 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
> Dear Stefan, Till and All
> I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main
> commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time
> for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee. 
> Best,
> Maria 
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
> Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00)
> A: [hidden email]
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>
> Dear Steven,
>
> thanks for correction ;-).
>
> I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
> the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.
>
> Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
> advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
> that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> Great work Till, thank you
>>
>> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>>
>> I have changed to:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>>
>> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
>> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
>> little more time for proposal writing?
>>
>> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
>> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
>> committee? 
>> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
>> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
>> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
>> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
>> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>> newsletter
>>
>>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>> <[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear CC!
>>>
>>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>>
>>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>
>>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>>> other errors.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Have a great day!
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mail: [hidden email]
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>
> terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
> Kölnstraße 99
> 53111 Bonn
>
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
> Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>
> Internet: www.terrestris.de <http://www.terrestris.de>
>
> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>
> Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
> Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>
> Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
> Homepage unter folgendem Link:
> https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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


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

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

delawen
Hi,

I think I missed that email :) But yes, I think it should be best.

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:01 PM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 to that Maria AR

" Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although they can ask questions like any other osgeo member)” is just about the same as I suggested 
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 5 Jun 2019, at 14:50, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I also think this is a problem. Choosing the foss4g venue is one of the most relevant tasks of OSGeo because it decides where and how the community is going to grow that year.

Having not committed people on that decision is an issue. And I understand someone may not have time to review it some years, that's fine, we cannot be 100% always. Skipping some processes is normal. 

But people that can't take the time to review it year after year shows they are no longer interested/are disconnected/are too busy and we should acknowledge it and don't make them part of the decision. I don't think pressing them to participate is also good, this is a hard decision and should be taken by people who can and want to do it. 

Having people not voting leads to forcing other people to vote without really reviewing the proposals. Because we have to get the minimum quorum and we need votes, no matter if they didn't have the time to review.  I don't think it is a good idea to have people without the time to properly review the proposals feeling forced to vote.

 Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although they can ask questions like any other osgeo member). 

Cheers, 
The other Maria. 

El mié., 5 jun. 2019 14:16, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> escribió:
Dear Till
If I'm the only person who believe that this is a problem, I will survive also with this situation. In the CC I'm simply a member and I prefer to put my (small) free time on something where I have more responsabilities. 
I remember enough well the discussions of the past and I don't want to find myself again in similar not confortable situations. Thanks a lot and go ahead as you please.
Best
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]>
Data: 05/06/19 13:32 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Dear Maria,

I would suggest the following: We de-couple the topic of "non-active members" from "voters for RFP 2021".

For RFP 2021 I would proceed as Steven suggested.

For the "non-active-members"-topic, I would suggest, that you start a motion in CC. If the motion is accepted, we then can discuss - also based on the past RFP's - who is affected.

How about that?

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 12:36 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
I believe that having a large committee of always silent people is useless. Better less, but active. 

After having proposed, if people don't show up, I propose to remove them. It could be not the first year, we can consider if this happens for two following years.

I like neither removement nor auto-removement but I don't see the point of being in a Committee if one person has not time for voting once a year.

Thanks a lot!
Best,
Maria 





Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
Data: 05/06/19 11:51 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R:  *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Maria,

we can do the following (and that is what I did last year):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-> ask whether people will vote on RFP

[wait]

-> re-ask those, who did not reply

[wait]

-> propose those who do not want to vote AND those who did not reply, to
leave the committee.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Indeed, there are some people, that did not vote for the past years, but
is auto-removement really what we want to do in our community?


Till



Am 05.06.19 um 11:44 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
> Dear Stefan, Till and All
> I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main
> commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time
> for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee. 
> Best,
> Maria 
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
> Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00)
> A: [hidden email]
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>
> Dear Steven,
>
> thanks for correction ;-).
>
> I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
> the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.
>
> Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
> advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
> that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> Great work Till, thank you
>>
>> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>>
>> I have changed to:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>>
>> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
>> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
>> little more time for proposal writing?
>>
>> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
>> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
>> committee? 
>> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
>> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
>> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
>> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
>> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>> newsletter
>>
>>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>> <[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear CC!
>>>
>>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>>
>>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>
>>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>>> other errors.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Have a great day!
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mail: [hidden email]
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>
> terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
> Kölnstraße 99
> 53111 Bonn
>
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
> Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>
> Internet: www.terrestris.de <http://www.terrestris.de>
>
> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>
> Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
> Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>
> Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
> Homepage unter folgendem Link:
> https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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


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

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

michael terner-2
THANKS Til for commencing the process!
+1 to Steven pointing out this a practical issue given quorum requirements
+1 to the idea of committee members affirmatively stating their intent to be an active, voting part of a given selection process before the submission of proposals
+1 to this being an important set of issues and needed discussion

As Maria AR points out, the voting process is diminished if people don't make the time necessary to read the proposals in detail. And as with the 2020 competition, it's a significant time commitment with 3 LOIs and 2 fine proposals. Rushing through a proposal is not fair to the submitters who have put in huge effort in meeting our guidelines and creating their proposals. And as several have commented, stuff happens in everyone's lives and there may be legitimate reasons why someone "needs to take a year off." Finally, as Maria AB suggested, it would seem reasonable to me that if someone can't make the time to actively participate in a voting process for some number of consecutive years (3 years? 5?) then that person should be encouraged to resign the committee (or, even be removed as per a rule that the CC may adopt). Indeed, the process of "affirmatively confirming intent to vote" that Steven suggested creates a measurable way of knowing if people have participated, or not.

MT

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:42 PM María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I think I missed that email :) But yes, I think it should be best.

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:01 PM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 to that Maria AR

" Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although they can ask questions like any other osgeo member)” is just about the same as I suggested 
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 5 Jun 2019, at 14:50, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I also think this is a problem. Choosing the foss4g venue is one of the most relevant tasks of OSGeo because it decides where and how the community is going to grow that year.

Having not committed people on that decision is an issue. And I understand someone may not have time to review it some years, that's fine, we cannot be 100% always. Skipping some processes is normal. 

But people that can't take the time to review it year after year shows they are no longer interested/are disconnected/are too busy and we should acknowledge it and don't make them part of the decision. I don't think pressing them to participate is also good, this is a hard decision and should be taken by people who can and want to do it. 

Having people not voting leads to forcing other people to vote without really reviewing the proposals. Because we have to get the minimum quorum and we need votes, no matter if they didn't have the time to review.  I don't think it is a good idea to have people without the time to properly review the proposals feeling forced to vote.

 Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although they can ask questions like any other osgeo member). 

Cheers, 
The other Maria. 

El mié., 5 jun. 2019 14:16, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> escribió:
Dear Till
If I'm the only person who believe that this is a problem, I will survive also with this situation. In the CC I'm simply a member and I prefer to put my (small) free time on something where I have more responsabilities. 
I remember enough well the discussions of the past and I don't want to find myself again in similar not confortable situations. Thanks a lot and go ahead as you please.
Best
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]>
Data: 05/06/19 13:32 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Dear Maria,

I would suggest the following: We de-couple the topic of "non-active members" from "voters for RFP 2021".

For RFP 2021 I would proceed as Steven suggested.

For the "non-active-members"-topic, I would suggest, that you start a motion in CC. If the motion is accepted, we then can discuss - also based on the past RFP's - who is affected.

How about that?

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 12:36 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
I believe that having a large committee of always silent people is useless. Better less, but active. 

After having proposed, if people don't show up, I propose to remove them. It could be not the first year, we can consider if this happens for two following years.

I like neither removement nor auto-removement but I don't see the point of being in a Committee if one person has not time for voting once a year.

Thanks a lot!
Best,
Maria 





Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
Data: 05/06/19 11:51 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R:  *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Maria,

we can do the following (and that is what I did last year):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-> ask whether people will vote on RFP

[wait]

-> re-ask those, who did not reply

[wait]

-> propose those who do not want to vote AND those who did not reply, to
leave the committee.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Indeed, there are some people, that did not vote for the past years, but
is auto-removement really what we want to do in our community?


Till



Am 05.06.19 um 11:44 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
> Dear Stefan, Till and All
> I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main
> commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time
> for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee. 
> Best,
> Maria 
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
> Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00)
> A: [hidden email]
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>
> Dear Steven,
>
> thanks for correction ;-).
>
> I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
> the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.
>
> Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
> advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
> that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> Great work Till, thank you
>>
>> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>>
>> I have changed to:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>>
>> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
>> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
>> little more time for proposal writing?
>>
>> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
>> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
>> committee? 
>> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
>> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
>> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
>> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
>> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>> newsletter
>>
>>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>> <[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear CC!
>>>
>>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>>
>>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>
>>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>>> other errors.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Have a great day!
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mail: [hidden email]
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>
> terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
> Kölnstraße 99
> 53111 Bonn
>
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
> Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>
> Internet: www.terrestris.de <http://www.terrestris.de>
>
> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>
> Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
> Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>
> Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
> Homepage unter folgendem Link:
> https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

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


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

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

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Cameron Shorter

+1 to Maria AR suggestion. (Note, I retired myself from the committee, so my vote doesn't count.)

I'm a person who is interested in the process and want to be actively involved in the committee, but I don't have the bandwidth or interest in selecting the foss4g venue any more.

On 6/6/19 5:28 am, michael terner wrote:
THANKS Til for commencing the process!
+1 to Steven pointing out this a practical issue given quorum requirements
+1 to the idea of committee members affirmatively stating their intent to be an active, voting part of a given selection process before the submission of proposals
+1 to this being an important set of issues and needed discussion

As Maria AR points out, the voting process is diminished if people don't make the time necessary to read the proposals in detail. And as with the 2020 competition, it's a significant time commitment with 3 LOIs and 2 fine proposals. Rushing through a proposal is not fair to the submitters who have put in huge effort in meeting our guidelines and creating their proposals. And as several have commented, stuff happens in everyone's lives and there may be legitimate reasons why someone "needs to take a year off." Finally, as Maria AB suggested, it would seem reasonable to me that if someone can't make the time to actively participate in a voting process for some number of consecutive years (3 years? 5?) then that person should be encouraged to resign the committee (or, even be removed as per a rule that the CC may adopt). Indeed, the process of "affirmatively confirming intent to vote" that Steven suggested creates a measurable way of knowing if people have participated, or not.

MT

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:42 PM María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I think I missed that email :) But yes, I think it should be best.

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:01 PM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 to that Maria AR

" Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although they can ask questions like any other osgeo member)” is just about the same as I suggested 
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 5 Jun 2019, at 14:50, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I also think this is a problem. Choosing the foss4g venue is one of the most relevant tasks of OSGeo because it decides where and how the community is going to grow that year.

Having not committed people on that decision is an issue. And I understand someone may not have time to review it some years, that's fine, we cannot be 100% always. Skipping some processes is normal. 

But people that can't take the time to review it year after year shows they are no longer interested/are disconnected/are too busy and we should acknowledge it and don't make them part of the decision. I don't think pressing them to participate is also good, this is a hard decision and should be taken by people who can and want to do it. 

Having people not voting leads to forcing other people to vote without really reviewing the proposals. Because we have to get the minimum quorum and we need votes, no matter if they didn't have the time to review.  I don't think it is a good idea to have people without the time to properly review the proposals feeling forced to vote.

 Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although they can ask questions like any other osgeo member). 

Cheers, 
The other Maria. 

El mié., 5 jun. 2019 14:16, Maria Antonia Brovelli <[hidden email]> escribió:
Dear Till
If I'm the only person who believe that this is a problem, I will survive also with this situation. In the CC I'm simply a member and I prefer to put my (small) free time on something where I have more responsabilities. 
I remember enough well the discussions of the past and I don't want to find myself again in similar not confortable situations. Thanks a lot and go ahead as you please.
Best
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]>
Data: 05/06/19 13:32 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Dear Maria,

I would suggest the following: We de-couple the topic of "non-active members" from "voters for RFP 2021".

For RFP 2021 I would proceed as Steven suggested.

For the "non-active-members"-topic, I would suggest, that you start a motion in CC. If the motion is accepted, we then can discuss - also based on the past RFP's - who is affected.

How about that?

Till


Am 05.06.19 um 12:36 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
I believe that having a large committee of always silent people is useless. Better less, but active. 

After having proposed, if people don't show up, I propose to remove them. It could be not the first year, we can consider if this happens for two following years.

I like neither removement nor auto-removement but I don't see the point of being in a Committee if one person has not time for voting once a year.

Thanks a lot!
Best,
Maria 





Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
Data: 05/06/19 11:51 (GMT+01:00)
A: [hidden email]
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R:  *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Maria,

we can do the following (and that is what I did last year):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-> ask whether people will vote on RFP

[wait]

-> re-ask those, who did not reply

[wait]

-> propose those who do not want to vote AND those who did not reply, to
leave the committee.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Indeed, there are some people, that did not vote for the past years, but
is auto-removement really what we want to do in our community?


Till



Am 05.06.19 um 11:44 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
> Dear Stefan, Till and All
> I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main
> commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time
> for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee. 
> Best,
> Maria 
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
> Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00)
> A: [hidden email]
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>
> Dear Steven,
>
> thanks for correction ;-).
>
> I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
> the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.
>
> Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
> advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
> that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> Great work Till, thank you
>>
>> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>>
>> I have changed to:
>>
>> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>>
>> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
>> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
>> little more time for proposal writing?
>>
>> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
>> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
>> committee? 
>> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
>> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
>> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
>> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
>> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>> newsletter
>>
>>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>> <[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear CC!
>>>
>>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>>>
>>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>
>>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>>> other errors.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Have a great day!
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mail: [hidden email]
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>
> terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
> Kölnstraße 99
> 53111 Bonn
>
> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
> Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>
> Internet: www.terrestris.de <http://www.terrestris.de>
>
> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>
> Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
> Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>
> Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
> Homepage unter folgendem Link:
> https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

   SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org

------------------------------------------------
Mail: [hidden email]
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52

terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn

Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57

Internet: www.terrestris.de

Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835

Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

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


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

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

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

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Jonathan Moules-4
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
Hi List,

Following the protracted discussion about voters in the parallel thread
it occurs to me that it's begging the question that voting is good.

Why exactly do we have voting for this? Surely the better and (far) less
subjective option is to an objective scoring system by which to measure
the quality of the submissions? There's still element of subjectivity of
course ("is this answer a 6/10 or a 7/10?"), but it's largely objective,
measurable, and transparent.

As far as I can tell from the transparency in the current voting (i.e.,
none) and reading the proposals (half of which usually reads like a
tourist brochure), votes could easily currently be getting cast via "I
want to go on holiday there next year". And while I'm not suggesting
that's actually happening intentionally, it's almost certainly going to
be a subconscious bias in the current process.

Cheers,

Jonathan


On 2019-06-05 08:07, Till Adams wrote:

> Dear CC!
>
> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.
>
> I added this WIKI page here:
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>
> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
> other errors.
>
>
> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to you.
>
> Have a great day!
>
> Till
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

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

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

stevenfeldman
Jonathan

Each member of the committee will bring their own priorities and experiences to the voting process. 

So for you the environmental considerations might be paramount while for someone else delivering a highly affordable delegate price may be their priority or another might be concerned about overall financial risk to OSGeo and someone else might be very focussed on diversity. We each have a different set of criteria and we also apply different levels of importance to those criteria.

The current system allows each voter to apply their own criteria and weightings and to select the proposal that they think best, the majority vote then wins. I know when I vote I usually have a good feeling for one of the proposals based on a mix of factors, you could say that was unconscious bias, I would say it was a combination of instinct and experience

cheers
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 6 Jun 2019, at 17:55, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi List,

Following the protracted discussion about voters in the parallel thread it occurs to me that it's begging the question that voting is good.

Why exactly do we have voting for this? Surely the better and (far) less subjective option is to an objective scoring system by which to measure the quality of the submissions? There's still element of subjectivity of course ("is this answer a 6/10 or a 7/10?"), but it's largely objective, measurable, and transparent.

As far as I can tell from the transparency in the current voting (i.e., none) and reading the proposals (half of which usually reads like a tourist brochure), votes could easily currently be getting cast via "I want to go on holiday there next year". And while I'm not suggesting that's actually happening intentionally, it's almost certainly going to be a subconscious bias in the current process.

Cheers,

Jonathan


On 2019-06-05 08:07, Till Adams wrote:
Dear CC!

I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.

I added this WIKI page here:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process

Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
other errors.


I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to you.

Have a great day!

Till

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

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


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

Re: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

Jonathan Moules-4

Hi Steven,

Indeed, and I would then suggest taking all of that hard earned experience, knowledge, priorities, and weightings and putting them inside an objective, measurable framework where it is less susceptible to biases, both conscious and not.

This would produce a much more open process, more in line with the O in OSGeo and the "open philosophy" part of the OSGeo Mission Statement. It also means experience and lessons learnt aren't lost when people leave the voting pool as with Cameron's input for instance.

Depending on the scoring metrics used, it would also allow for a more direct comparison between proposals. And as a bonus, the scoring/metrics being open means it's open to comment and feedback from everyone, meaning the process is now more "participatory community driven development" (again, straight from the one-sentence Mission Statement).

Cheers,

Jonathan


On 2019-06-06 19:18, Steven Feldman wrote:
Jonathan

Each member of the committee will bring their own priorities and experiences to the voting process. 

So for you the environmental considerations might be paramount while for someone else delivering a highly affordable delegate price may be their priority or another might be concerned about overall financial risk to OSGeo and someone else might be very focussed on diversity. We each have a different set of criteria and we also apply different levels of importance to those criteria.

The current system allows each voter to apply their own criteria and weightings and to select the proposal that they think best, the majority vote then wins. I know when I vote I usually have a good feeling for one of the proposals based on a mix of factors, you could say that was unconscious bias, I would say it was a combination of instinct and experience

cheers
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 6 Jun 2019, at 17:55, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi List,

Following the protracted discussion about voters in the parallel thread it occurs to me that it's begging the question that voting is good.

Why exactly do we have voting for this? Surely the better and (far) less subjective option is to an objective scoring system by which to measure the quality of the submissions? There's still element of subjectivity of course ("is this answer a 6/10 or a 7/10?"), but it's largely objective, measurable, and transparent.

As far as I can tell from the transparency in the current voting (i.e., none) and reading the proposals (half of which usually reads like a tourist brochure), votes could easily currently be getting cast via "I want to go on holiday there next year". And while I'm not suggesting that's actually happening intentionally, it's almost certainly going to be a subconscious bias in the current process.

Cheers,

Jonathan


On 2019-06-05 08:07, Till Adams wrote:
Dear CC!

I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for 2021.

I added this WIKI page here:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process

Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
other errors.


I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to you.

Have a great day!

Till

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

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


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
12