<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
All,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">My initial thoughts here are that the process should cross at least two levels or organizational scrutiny. Yes the committee would in my mind have the most influence in deciding, but the Board would still have the option of veto power if needed.
any maybe there is a back and forth in the process to some degree, but keeping the process to closed up (single group) I think has the potential for leaving some bids out in the cold for one reason or another. By having a multi-level review process you get
away from this type of concern rather easily.
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The lobby folks also have two different points of potential effect for lobby position etc. I’m just trying to describe a flexible, but still finite process.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">bobb</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Steven Feldman <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" class="">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
Why can’t the conference committee include rigorous scrutiny of the financials and risk within their assessment of proposals rather than offloading to the board?
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">We are meant to be the group with the expertise in running past conferences, we should do the financial assessment. Perhaps we should do this before we even start to read the rest of the bid to ‘weed out’ any financially unsound proposals.<br class="">
<div class=""><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; border-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">______<br class="">
Steven<br class="">
<br class="">
</span></div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 15 Jul 2015, at 00:09, Eli Adam <<a href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us" class="">eadam@co.lincoln.or.us</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">Hi all,<br class="">
<br class="">
I tried addressing this previously but it didn't go anywhere [0].<br class="">
<br class="">
The conference committee recommends a LOC bid based on many criteria<br class="">
to the OSGeo Board. Financial risk or success is not the primary<br class="">
focus.<br class="">
<br class="">
The OSGeo Board has to approve (or not) our recommendation, but their<br class="">
primary focus is financial risk and success.<br class="">
<br class="">
Right now the FOSS4G selection process could put the OSGeo Board in an<br class="">
untenable position. Imagine this scenario: Bid A is an okay bid all<br class="">
around and looks great financially. Bid B is a great bid all around<br class="">
except looks risky financially. The conference committee recommends<br class="">
bid B to the Board. Now the Board is put in a very bad position where<br class="">
they have to either start overturning the conference committee (and<br class="">
delaying the process) or accept our recommendation which was made on<br class="">
different criteria.<br class="">
<br class="">
Now, let's look at another potential method that keeps the Board out<br class="">
of that position. Just like the previous scenario, Bid A is an okay<br class="">
bid all around and looks great financially. Bid B is a great bid all<br class="">
around except looks risky financially. Before the conference<br class="">
committee makes a recommendation, the Board votes a "financial<br class="">
preference" or "financial exclusion" like, "The Board has a financial<br class="">
preference for Bid A" or more forcefully, "The Board financially<br class="">
excludes Bid B" (most years this will be "The Board has no financial<br class="">
preference since all these bids appear financially viable"). Then the<br class="">
conference committee continues with making a recommendation.<br class="">
<br class="">
Right now the way our process works seems rigged to prevent the Board<br class="">
from really exercising their financial oversight.<br class="">
<br class="">
Do you like this proposed process? Should we use it this year?<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Cheers, Eli<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
[0] <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2014-February/002457.html" class="">
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2014-February/002457.html</a><br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Conference_dev mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Conference_dev mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br class="">
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>