some decisions in the pipe

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

some decisions in the pipe

Till Adams-3
Hi Conference comittee,

this is a general reminder on some decisions/discussions, that I have on
my list we have to talk about in the following weeks. This email serves
just as a general list-up with the hope, that you'll find some time to
think about some of my issues. If you have your own things to bring in,
feel free to share!

I will list these points as seperate issues below and would be happy if
we start a discussion:

1. Voting Members

For the last RfP, where we nominated Bucharest as venue for the 2019
conference, we had a weak quorum, because quite some members did not
vote. I sent out personal emails to the non-voters and received feedback
from 3 of the 5 non-voters. These 3 excused themselves, they had reasons
and they are willing to stay on board and that makes me happy.

Leads me to the question, that I still did not get any feedback from the
other 2. Now it's already some weeks ago that I contacted them,
including a remembering mail.
I don't know if we have an official trial to rule out people and
personnally I wouldn't like to do that, because I know at least one of
the 2 personally.
On the other side, we can't be sure, that they will appear back once
upon a time. Not re-appearing means that we have to fear more weak
quorums in the future.

Issue 1: How do we act here?

This directly leads me to question 2: I will nominate Guido Stein and
Michael Terner as new members for the CC later. I think as former chairs
of a successful global FOSS4G conference, it is without question clear,
that we need them as new members in CC. Also there was a request of
Gerald Fenoy back this summer, where he asked for participation as member.
I am little unsure here, because I fear, that we will have a huge CC
within a few years, when we also nominate all past chairs of regional
events. In my eyes (without rating!!!) organizing a regional event is a
cmletely different game than having a global FOSS4G. And our job is to
vote on proposals for global conferences venues. On the other side, of
course, having some more active members inside CC wouldn't be the badest
idea.

Issue 2: Accept nomination of Gerald Fenoy (and potential other regional
chairs?) ?


2. Voting process
We discussed to alter the voting process, so that for step 1 (LOI
acceptance) of the RfP 2019 we had this new "thumbs up"/"thumbs down"
vote. I will soon call for a vote, whether we want to keep this
procedure or go back to the old "one vote per member" also for step 1.
 

3. Bid process
I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
soon as well.


So far, have a nice day!

Till




 






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

R: some decisions in the pipe

Maria Antonia Brovelli
+1 for accepting the nomination of Gerald. I organise a local low cost (less than 100 euro fee) conference with more than 400 people and I can say that you learn a lot also from these "small" conferences. 
Best regards 
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]>
Data: 23/01/18 12:33 (GMT+01:00)
A: conference <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: [OSGeo-Conf]  some decisions in the pipe

Hi Conference comittee,

this is a general reminder on some decisions/discussions, that I have on
my list we have to talk about in the following weeks. This email serves
just as a general list-up with the hope, that you'll find some time to
think about some of my issues. If you have your own things to bring in,
feel free to share!

I will list these points as seperate issues below and would be happy if
we start a discussion:

1. Voting Members

For the last RfP, where we nominated Bucharest as venue for the 2019
conference, we had a weak quorum, because quite some members did not
vote. I sent out personal emails to the non-voters and received feedback
from 3 of the 5 non-voters. These 3 excused themselves, they had reasons
and they are willing to stay on board and that makes me happy.

Leads me to the question, that I still did not get any feedback from the
other 2. Now it's already some weeks ago that I contacted them,
including a remembering mail.
I don't know if we have an official trial to rule out people and
personnally I wouldn't like to do that, because I know at least one of
the 2 personally.
On the other side, we can't be sure, that they will appear back once
upon a time. Not re-appearing means that we have to fear more weak
quorums in the future.

Issue 1: How do we act here?

This directly leads me to question 2: I will nominate Guido Stein and
Michael Terner as new members for the CC later. I think as former chairs
of a successful global FOSS4G conference, it is without question clear,
that we need them as new members in CC. Also there was a request of
Gerald Fenoy back this summer, where he asked for participation as member.
I am little unsure here, because I fear, that we will have a huge CC
within a few years, when we also nominate all past chairs of regional
events. In my eyes (without rating!!!) organizing a regional event is a
cmletely different game than having a global FOSS4G. And our job is to
vote on proposals for global conferences venues. On the other side, of
course, having some more active members inside CC wouldn't be the badest
idea.

Issue 2: Accept nomination of Gerald Fenoy (and potential other regional
chairs?) ?


2. Voting process
We discussed to alter the voting process, so that for step 1 (LOI
acceptance) of the RfP 2019 we had this new "thumbs up"/"thumbs down"
vote. I will soon call for a vote, whether we want to keep this
procedure or go back to the old "one vote per member" also for step 1.
 

3. Bid process
I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
soon as well.


So far, have a nice 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: some decisions in the pipe

David William Bitner-3
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
My apologies for not replying. I have been very busy as-of-late, traveling during both vote periods and did not have time to do a thorough review of the proposals and as such did not vote on the RfPs.

I am happy to step aside from the committee if that is the direction that this group would like to take for members who may not be able to engage every year, but to my opinion, we bring folks onto this committee because of their experience and trust that we have in them. Part of that trust is that they will act only when they can give the proper due diligence. I would like to stay engaged with this committee (and will regardless of if I am a voting member) but cannot commit that I will be able to do appropriate due diligence each year, and in the case that I cannot I will not vote.

I see very little problem in having a large committee here and in fact think that as long as we are very deliberative on who we bring in, having a large committee can help to mitigate that not everyone is going to be willing or able to spend the time each and every year reviewing proposals. 

I absolutely and enthusiastically second the nomination of Guido and Michael. I also support the nomination of Gerald and believe that getting more regional chairs involved and trying to bridge the brick wall that seems to exist between how we look at the regional events and the "Big Show" can only help us be more strategic and reach out to more people, companies, business sectors, and different parts of the world.

David

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 5:33 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Conference comittee,

this is a general reminder on some decisions/discussions, that I have on
my list we have to talk about in the following weeks. This email serves
just as a general list-up with the hope, that you'll find some time to
think about some of my issues. If you have your own things to bring in,
feel free to share!

I will list these points as seperate issues below and would be happy if
we start a discussion:

1. Voting Members

For the last RfP, where we nominated Bucharest as venue for the 2019
conference, we had a weak quorum, because quite some members did not
vote. I sent out personal emails to the non-voters and received feedback
from 3 of the 5 non-voters. These 3 excused themselves, they had reasons
and they are willing to stay on board and that makes me happy.

Leads me to the question, that I still did not get any feedback from the
other 2. Now it's already some weeks ago that I contacted them,
including a remembering mail.
I don't know if we have an official trial to rule out people and
personnally I wouldn't like to do that, because I know at least one of
the 2 personally.
On the other side, we can't be sure, that they will appear back once
upon a time. Not re-appearing means that we have to fear more weak
quorums in the future.

Issue 1: How do we act here?

This directly leads me to question 2: I will nominate Guido Stein and
Michael Terner as new members for the CC later. I think as former chairs
of a successful global FOSS4G conference, it is without question clear,
that we need them as new members in CC. Also there was a request of
Gerald Fenoy back this summer, where he asked for participation as member.
I am little unsure here, because I fear, that we will have a huge CC
within a few years, when we also nominate all past chairs of regional
events. In my eyes (without rating!!!) organizing a regional event is a
cmletely different game than having a global FOSS4G. And our job is to
vote on proposals for global conferences venues. On the other side, of
course, having some more active members inside CC wouldn't be the badest
idea.

Issue 2: Accept nomination of Gerald Fenoy (and potential other regional
chairs?) ?


2. Voting process
We discussed to alter the voting process, so that for step 1 (LOI
acceptance) of the RfP 2019 we had this new "thumbs up"/"thumbs down"
vote. I will soon call for a vote, whether we want to keep this
procedure or go back to the old "one vote per member" also for step 1.
 

3. Bid process
I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
soon as well.


So far, have a nice day!

Till




 






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



--
************************************
David William Bitner
dbSpatial LLC
612-578-9553

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

Re: some decisions in the pipe

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Conference comittee,
...

> 3. Bid process
> I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
> the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
> gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
> I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
> would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
> the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
> marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
> happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
> one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
> soon as well.

On this topic, I don't think that it matters.  It is easier to compare
two proposals that are in a vary similar format.  And sticking to the
template format may indeed be an advantage.

Eli


>
>
> So far, have a nice 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: some decisions in the pipe

Till Adams-3
In reply to this post by David William Bitner-3

Dear David,

but I guess that here (as so oten) communication is the key. If I'd received a clear statement "sorry Till/CC, I will not make it this year" that would help a lot. In case for this, we could change the number of votes in advance and don't get the danger of not having a quorum ;-)

Reagrds, Till


Am 23.01.2018 um 20:27 schrieb David William Bitner:
My apologies for not replying. I have been very busy as-of-late, traveling during both vote periods and did not have time to do a thorough review of the proposals and as such did not vote on the RfPs.

I am happy to step aside from the committee if that is the direction that this group would like to take for members who may not be able to engage every year, but to my opinion, we bring folks onto this committee because of their experience and trust that we have in them. Part of that trust is that they will act only when they can give the proper due diligence. I would like to stay engaged with this committee (and will regardless of if I am a voting member) but cannot commit that I will be able to do appropriate due diligence each year, and in the case that I cannot I will not vote.

I see very little problem in having a large committee here and in fact think that as long as we are very deliberative on who we bring in, having a large committee can help to mitigate that not everyone is going to be willing or able to spend the time each and every year reviewing proposals. 

I absolutely and enthusiastically second the nomination of Guido and Michael. I also support the nomination of Gerald and believe that getting more regional chairs involved and trying to bridge the brick wall that seems to exist between how we look at the regional events and the "Big Show" can only help us be more strategic and reach out to more people, companies, business sectors, and different parts of the world.

David

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 5:33 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Conference comittee,

this is a general reminder on some decisions/discussions, that I have on
my list we have to talk about in the following weeks. This email serves
just as a general list-up with the hope, that you'll find some time to
think about some of my issues. If you have your own things to bring in,
feel free to share!

I will list these points as seperate issues below and would be happy if
we start a discussion:

1. Voting Members

For the last RfP, where we nominated Bucharest as venue for the 2019
conference, we had a weak quorum, because quite some members did not
vote. I sent out personal emails to the non-voters and received feedback
from 3 of the 5 non-voters. These 3 excused themselves, they had reasons
and they are willing to stay on board and that makes me happy.

Leads me to the question, that I still did not get any feedback from the
other 2. Now it's already some weeks ago that I contacted them,
including a remembering mail.
I don't know if we have an official trial to rule out people and
personnally I wouldn't like to do that, because I know at least one of
the 2 personally.
On the other side, we can't be sure, that they will appear back once
upon a time. Not re-appearing means that we have to fear more weak
quorums in the future.

Issue 1: How do we act here?

This directly leads me to question 2: I will nominate Guido Stein and
Michael Terner as new members for the CC later. I think as former chairs
of a successful global FOSS4G conference, it is without question clear,
that we need them as new members in CC. Also there was a request of
Gerald Fenoy back this summer, where he asked for participation as member.
I am little unsure here, because I fear, that we will have a huge CC
within a few years, when we also nominate all past chairs of regional
events. In my eyes (without rating!!!) organizing a regional event is a
cmletely different game than having a global FOSS4G. And our job is to
vote on proposals for global conferences venues. On the other side, of
course, having some more active members inside CC wouldn't be the badest
idea.

Issue 2: Accept nomination of Gerald Fenoy (and potential other regional
chairs?) ?


2. Voting process
We discussed to alter the voting process, so that for step 1 (LOI
acceptance) of the RfP 2019 we had this new "thumbs up"/"thumbs down"
vote. I will soon call for a vote, whether we want to keep this
procedure or go back to the old "one vote per member" also for step 1.
 

3. Bid process
I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
soon as well.


So far, have a nice day!

Till




 






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



--
************************************
David William Bitner
dbSpatial LLC
612-578-9553


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

Re: some decisions in the pipe

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Conference comittee,
>
...

>
> 1. Voting Members
>
> For the last RfP, where we nominated Bucharest as venue for the 2019
> conference, we had a weak quorum, because quite some members did not
> vote. I sent out personal emails to the non-voters and received feedback
> from 3 of the 5 non-voters. These 3 excused themselves, they had reasons
> and they are willing to stay on board and that makes me happy.
>
> Leads me to the question, that I still did not get any feedback from the
> other 2. Now it's already some weeks ago that I contacted them,
> including a remembering mail.
> I don't know if we have an official trial to rule out people and
> personnally I wouldn't like to do that, because I know at least one of
> the 2 personally.
> On the other side, we can't be sure, that they will appear back once
> upon a time. Not re-appearing means that we have to fear more weak
> quorums in the future.

I don't fear weak quorum.  We changed our policies to avoid weak
quorum.  We can reevaluate whether those policies are working to
discourage weak quorum. We can change our policies if they are not
working or achieving what we want.

...

> So far, have a nice 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: R: some decisions in the pipe

Till Adams-3
In reply to this post by Maria Antonia Brovelli

Dear Maria,

I am not wanting to do any separation here. But - in my eyes, as long-term co-organisator of numerous regional FOSSGIS conferences (with regularly up to 400-500 attendees), I can say that organizing a global FOSS4G is a completely different game - in sight of venue, size, cost-structure, number of events and much more.

Just wanted to note that.

Till


Am 23.01.2018 um 20:13 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
+1 for accepting the nomination of Gerald. I organise a local low cost (less than 100 euro fee) conference with more than 400 people and I can say that you learn a lot also from these "small" conferences. 
Best regards 
Maria 



Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung


-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Till Adams [hidden email]
Data: 23/01/18 12:33 (GMT+01:00)
A: conference [hidden email]
Oggetto: [OSGeo-Conf]  some decisions in the pipe

Hi Conference comittee,

this is a general reminder on some decisions/discussions, that I have on
my list we have to talk about in the following weeks. This email serves
just as a general list-up with the hope, that you'll find some time to
think about some of my issues. If you have your own things to bring in,
feel free to share!

I will list these points as seperate issues below and would be happy if
we start a discussion:

1. Voting Members

For the last RfP, where we nominated Bucharest as venue for the 2019
conference, we had a weak quorum, because quite some members did not
vote. I sent out personal emails to the non-voters and received feedback
from 3 of the 5 non-voters. These 3 excused themselves, they had reasons
and they are willing to stay on board and that makes me happy.

Leads me to the question, that I still did not get any feedback from the
other 2. Now it's already some weeks ago that I contacted them,
including a remembering mail.
I don't know if we have an official trial to rule out people and
personnally I wouldn't like to do that, because I know at least one of
the 2 personally.
On the other side, we can't be sure, that they will appear back once
upon a time. Not re-appearing means that we have to fear more weak
quorums in the future.

Issue 1: How do we act here?

This directly leads me to question 2: I will nominate Guido Stein and
Michael Terner as new members for the CC later. I think as former chairs
of a successful global FOSS4G conference, it is without question clear,
that we need them as new members in CC. Also there was a request of
Gerald Fenoy back this summer, where he asked for participation as member.
I am little unsure here, because I fear, that we will have a huge CC
within a few years, when we also nominate all past chairs of regional
events. In my eyes (without rating!!!) organizing a regional event is a
cmletely different game than having a global FOSS4G. And our job is to
vote on proposals for global conferences venues. On the other side, of
course, having some more active members inside CC wouldn't be the badest
idea.

Issue 2: Accept nomination of Gerald Fenoy (and potential other regional
chairs?) ?


2. Voting process
We discussed to alter the voting process, so that for step 1 (LOI
acceptance) of the RfP 2019 we had this new "thumbs up"/"thumbs down"
vote. I will soon call for a vote, whether we want to keep this
procedure or go back to the old "one vote per member" also for step 1.
 

3. Bid process
I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
soon as well.


So far, have a nice 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: some decisions in the pipe

stevenfeldman
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
1) Over a year ago we tried to agree procedures to manage the size of the committee, the adoption of new members, quorums etc. That generated a lot of heat and subsequently we adopted the process/rules that are in the wiki at https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Decisions and https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Membership

The main (or only) role that is reserved for Committee Members is the selection of the Team/Location for the annual FOSS4G all other discussion and activities e.g. wiki maintenance, maintaining/updating the RfP docs and process, organising the Travel Grant Programme (anything else?) are open to anyone who participates on the Conerence_Dev list. 
  • I suggest that we do need to keep the number of Committee Members to a manageable number to ensure that we get a quorum from the active members (we initially failed to have a quorum for the LoI phase this year) and were quite light for the final phase
  • The selection of the global FOSS4G is the most significant (and risky) decision that OSGeo takes each year. The surpluses are the principal source of funding for the foundation and when we offer a guarantee and seed funding to an LOC there is potential for substantial exposure for OSGeo. To me it makes sense that this selection is made by people who have relatively recent experience of running a FOSS4G and the challenges and finances involved. I agree with those who have said that even a large regional event is not comparable.
  • For these reasons I have voted in another thread to support Guido and Michael and mildly against (but not vetoing) Gerard

2) I thought the thumbs up/down process for selecting LoIs worked well it allows all of the good proposals to go to the next stage while allowing us to reject a proposal that fails to impress more than half the voting members

3) I am in favour of mandating a standard response format for the full proposals (much as many of us who tend for public sector contracts have grown used to)

May the FOSS be with you
______
Steven


On 23 Jan 2018, at 11:33, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Conference comittee,

this is a general reminder on some decisions/discussions, that I have on
my list we have to talk about in the following weeks. This email serves
just as a general list-up with the hope, that you'll find some time to
think about some of my issues. If you have your own things to bring in,
feel free to share!

I will list these points as seperate issues below and would be happy if
we start a discussion:

1. Voting Members

For the last RfP, where we nominated Bucharest as venue for the 2019
conference, we had a weak quorum, because quite some members did not
vote. I sent out personal emails to the non-voters and received feedback
from 3 of the 5 non-voters. These 3 excused themselves, they had reasons
and they are willing to stay on board and that makes me happy.

Leads me to the question, that I still did not get any feedback from the
other 2. Now it's already some weeks ago that I contacted them,
including a remembering mail.
I don't know if we have an official trial to rule out people and
personnally I wouldn't like to do that, because I know at least one of
the 2 personally.
On the other side, we can't be sure, that they will appear back once
upon a time. Not re-appearing means that we have to fear more weak
quorums in the future.

Issue 1: How do we act here?

This directly leads me to question 2: I will nominate Guido Stein and
Michael Terner as new members for the CC later. I think as former chairs
of a successful global FOSS4G conference, it is without question clear,
that we need them as new members in CC. Also there was a request of
Gerald Fenoy back this summer, where he asked for participation as member.
I am little unsure here, because I fear, that we will have a huge CC
within a few years, when we also nominate all past chairs of regional
events. In my eyes (without rating!!!) organizing a regional event is a
cmletely different game than having a global FOSS4G. And our job is to
vote on proposals for global conferences venues. On the other side, of
course, having some more active members inside CC wouldn't be the badest
idea.

Issue 2: Accept nomination of Gerald Fenoy (and potential other regional
chairs?) ?


2. Voting process
We discussed to alter the voting process, so that for step 1 (LOI
acceptance) of the RfP 2019 we had this new "thumbs up"/"thumbs down"
vote. I will soon call for a vote, whether we want to keep this
procedure or go back to the old "one vote per member" also for step 1.
 

3. Bid process
I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
soon as well.


So far, have a nice 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: R: some decisions in the pipe

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
A couple of questions;

- If knowing the game of organizing global is
   the crucial criteria for being an official member of CC,
   why are chairs of regional conferences
   (Jachym, Vasile MariaB (all my respect to them)
   and myself) presently serving CC as official members?

- If limiting the size of CC membership is an
   important consideration, why do we need
   two members from the Boston team?
   (no disrespect to either Michael Terner & Guido Stein)

Venka

On 1/25/2018 7:50 PM, Till Adams wrote:

> Dear Maria,
>
> I am not wanting to do any separation here. But - in my eyes, as
> long-term co-organisator of numerous regional FOSSGIS conferences (with
> regularly up to 400-500 attendees), I can say that organizing a global
> FOSS4G is a completely different game - in sight of venue, size,
> cost-structure, number of events and much more.
>
> Just wanted to note that.
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 23.01.2018 um 20:13 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
>> +1 for accepting the nomination of Gerald. I organise a local low cost
>> (less than 100 euro fee) conference with more than 400 people and I
>> can say that you learn a lot also from these "small" conferences.
>> Best regards
>> Maria
>>
>>
>>
>> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>>
>>
>> -------- Messaggio originale --------
>> Da: Till Adams <[hidden email]>
>> Data: 23/01/18 12:33 (GMT+01:00)
>> A: conference <[hidden email]>
>> Oggetto: [OSGeo-Conf]  some decisions in the pipe
>>
>> Hi Conference comittee,
>>
>> this is a general reminder on some decisions/discussions, that I have on
>> my list we have to talk about in the following weeks. This email serves
>> just as a general list-up with the hope, that you'll find some time to
>> think about some of my issues. If you have your own things to bring in,
>> feel free to share!
>>
>> I will list these points as seperate issues below and would be happy if
>> we start a discussion:
>>
>> 1. Voting Members
>>
>> For the last RfP, where we nominated Bucharest as venue for the 2019
>> conference, we had a weak quorum, because quite some members did not
>> vote. I sent out personal emails to the non-voters and received feedback
>> from 3 of the 5 non-voters. These 3 excused themselves, they had reasons
>> and they are willing to stay on board and that makes me happy.
>>
>> Leads me to the question, that I still did not get any feedback from the
>> other 2. Now it's already some weeks ago that I contacted them,
>> including a remembering mail.
>> I don't know if we have an official trial to rule out people and
>> personnally I wouldn't like to do that, because I know at least one of
>> the 2 personally.
>> On the other side, we can't be sure, that they will appear back once
>> upon a time. Not re-appearing means that we have to fear more weak
>> quorums in the future.
>>
>> Issue 1: How do we act here?
>>
>> This directly leads me to question 2: I will nominate Guido Stein and
>> Michael Terner as new members for the CC later. I think as former chairs
>> of a successful global FOSS4G conference, it is without question clear,
>> that we need them as new members in CC. Also there was a request of
>> Gerald Fenoy back this summer, where he asked for participation as member.
>> I am little unsure here, because I fear, that we will have a huge CC
>> within a few years, when we also nominate all past chairs of regional
>> events. In my eyes (without rating!!!) organizing a regional event is a
>> cmletely different game than having a global FOSS4G. And our job is to
>> vote on proposals for global conferences venues. On the other side, of
>> course, having some more active members inside CC wouldn't be the badest
>> idea.
>>
>> Issue 2: Accept nomination of Gerald Fenoy (and potential other regional
>> chairs?) ?
>>
>>
>> 2. Voting process
>> We discussed to alter the voting process, so that for step 1 (LOI
>> acceptance) of the RfP 2019 we had this new "thumbs up"/"thumbs down"
>> vote. I will soon call for a vote, whether we want to keep this
>> procedure or go back to the old "one vote per member" also for step 1.
>>  
>>
>> 3. Bid process
>> I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
>> the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
>> gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
>> I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
>> would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
>> the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
>> marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
>> happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
>> one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
>> soon as well.
>>
>>
>> So far, have a nice 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: some decisions in the pipe

delawen
In reply to this post by Eli Adam


On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Conference comittee,
...
> 3. Bid process
> I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
> the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
> gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
> I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
> would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
> the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
> marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
> happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
> one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
> soon as well.

On this topic, I don't think that it matters.  It is easier to compare
two proposals that are in a vary similar format.  And sticking to the
template format may indeed be an advantage.


As an interested party for the last process....I don't agree. Unless we want to make FOSS4G something static that doesn't evolve and adapt to new needs. We have been talking about adding new sections like User specific space, Business to business, etc. If we stick to a fixed template with fixed sections it becomes very difficult to introduce experimental stuff. There was a lot of new things we introduced in the proposal that just didn't fit on any of the sections of the RFP.

What we did on the Sevilla proposal was introduce new sections not included on the RFP. But all the information required by the RFP was there. Does this mean we should have cut the parts that didn't fit on the RFP? I am not part of the conference committee, but I think that is a huge mistake.

We already have an economic template, but for the "what do you plan to do" and "how do you plan to do it" I think we should allow and foment creativity.

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

Re: some decisions in the pipe

Paul Ramsey
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 2:42 AM, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi Conference comittee,
>> ...
>> > 3. Bid process
>> > I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
>> > the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
>> > gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
>> > I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
>> > would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
>> > the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
>> > marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
>> > happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
>> > one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
>> > soon as well.
>>
>> On this topic, I don't think that it matters.  It is easier to compare
>> two proposals that are in a vary similar format.  And sticking to the
>> template format may indeed be an advantage.
>
> We already have an economic template, but for the "what do you plan to do"
> and "how do you plan to do it" I think we should allow and foment
> creativity.

I have no position on creativity per se, but I think the suggestion
that we need identically structured proposals in order to carry out
some kind of rigorous section-by-section comparison regime is to imply
a level of formalism that simply doesn't exist in our process. Read
the freaking proposals. Form an opinion. Read them again to see if
your opinion is shite. Decide.

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

Re: some decisions in the pipe

Eli Adam
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Paul Ramsey <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 2:42 AM, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > Hi Conference comittee,
>>> ...
>>> > 3. Bid process
>>> > I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
>>> > the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
>>> > gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
>>> > I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
>>> > would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
>>> > the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
>>> > marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
>>> > happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
>>> > one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
>>> > soon as well.
>>>
>>> On this topic, I don't think that it matters.  It is easier to compare
>>> two proposals that are in a vary similar format.  And sticking to the
>>> template format may indeed be an advantage.

It may not have been clear by what I wrote above, but my intent was to
say that teams should be free to use any format they want (for
whatever advantage or disadvantage that format may bring).


>>
>> We already have an economic template, but for the "what do you plan to do"
>> and "how do you plan to do it" I think we should allow and foment
>> creativity.
>
> I have no position on creativity per se, but I think the suggestion
> that we need identically structured proposals in order to carry out
> some kind of rigorous section-by-section comparison regime is to imply
> a level of formalism that simply doesn't exist in our process. Read
> the freaking proposals. Form an opinion. Read them again to see if
> your opinion is shite. Decide.

Now this is tangential, but I've increasingly found that I'm choosing
between 2+ very good proposals.  I've not been able to make a
hypothetical case "why this proposal is not good for OSGeo and
FOSS4G."  While I still prefer one proposal over the others (whether
that is geography, organizing team, ideas for the event, etc), I can't
pretend that it is a well reasoned important decision.  On many of
these, objectively evaluating the finances, risks, quality, etc, one
can only conclude that either one would be a great event that is
successful.  This has led me to question our selection process or at
least the importance.

I read them.  I like one more than the other.  I vote. (But does it
matter if both are great?)

Eli


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

Re: some decisions in the pipe

stevenfeldman
 I agree that we should encourage creativity and that mandating a format may be unhelpful.

We could request some mandatory responses to be included in a section or appendix that would enable those who like to compare detail to do so without inhibiting creative ideas and presentation. 

I have noted a trend to increasingly more “professionally designed” proposals over the last few years, that is good but should not be a factor in our selection process and we should make that clear in  future rounds.

I agree with Eli that in recent years (not 2018 where we only had one proposal) we have been fortunate to have proposals which were each very good so the final decision for each voter is going to be made on some kind of gut feel. That’s ok, our judgement seems to work.
______
Steven


On 31 Jan 2018, at 17:00, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Paul Ramsey <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 2:42 AM, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Conference comittee,
...
3. Bid process
I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
soon as well.

On this topic, I don't think that it matters.  It is easier to compare
two proposals that are in a vary similar format.  And sticking to the
template format may indeed be an advantage.

It may not have been clear by what I wrote above, but my intent was to
say that teams should be free to use any format they want (for
whatever advantage or disadvantage that format may bring).



We already have an economic template, but for the "what do you plan to do"
and "how do you plan to do it" I think we should allow and foment
creativity.

I have no position on creativity per se, but I think the suggestion
that we need identically structured proposals in order to carry out
some kind of rigorous section-by-section comparison regime is to imply
a level of formalism that simply doesn't exist in our process. Read
the freaking proposals. Form an opinion. Read them again to see if
your opinion is shite. Decide.

Now this is tangential, but I've increasingly found that I'm choosing
between 2+ very good proposals.  I've not been able to make a
hypothetical case "why this proposal is not good for OSGeo and
FOSS4G."  While I still prefer one proposal over the others (whether
that is geography, organizing team, ideas for the event, etc), I can't
pretend that it is a well reasoned important decision.  On many of
these, objectively evaluating the finances, risks, quality, etc, one
can only conclude that either one would be a great event that is
successful.  This has led me to question our selection process or at
least the importance.

I read them.  I like one more than the other.  I vote. (But does it
matter if both are great?)

Eli



P.
_______________________________________________
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: some decisions in the pipe

Till Adams-3
Dear list,

just to sum up the discussion results of the things, that I recently
started.

1.) Regading all the opinions about my thoughts about a unique template
for RFP of FOSS4G's I think that most of you disagree with preparing a
pre-fixed template and give the teams their freedom to shape their
proposal as they like to.  

If nobody sees a need for a vote here, I'd tend to put this idea aside.

2.) Regarding the nomination of Gerald, performed by Venka. There have
been vivid discussions on the process of nomination and also the for and
against of accepting nominations of regional chairs as members for the
global conference committee.

My thought on this is the following: I would call for a vote, whether we
should accept nominations of chairs of regional conferences in general
in the future. Depending on the result, we can proceed on this issue.

3) In general I woud like to ask everybody (including me) to care for a
clear topic and content of your mails, especially when calling for a
vote. Mixing up content and requests for a vote will end up in
frustration, unclearness and motionless of our committee.


So far, hope you have better weather than we have over here ;-)

Till


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