<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Conference committee,</p>
<p>Should vote counts for cities bidding for FOSS4G be shared,
either publicly or privately?</p>
<p>This question is applicable for both stage 1 and stage 2 voting.</p>
<p>Options suggested so far:</p>
<p>1. Results of vote are publicly announced, number of votes for
each city is not shared.</p>
<p>2. Additionally, each city is privately notified of votes for
each city.</p>
<p>3. Additionally, votes for each city is shared publicly.<br>
</p>
<p>--<br>
</p>
<p>This question was raised while refining FOSS4G committee
discussions. (Discussions were initially private to reduce email
fatigue). Discussion so far is shared below.</p>
<p>I'll hold this thread open for two weeks for discussion, until 10
Jan, then raise a motion to be voted on.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/12/2016 5:48 AM, Cameron Shorter
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:273d8272-0e6b-f5ba-ce54-422ae157cfd9@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p>Venka,</p>
<snip><br>
<p>With regards to publishing the results of FOSS4G votes, I
suggest that this should be described in the FOSS4G RFP document
rather than here. (We should only describe in one place, and it
should be easily found by cities looking to vote).</p>
<p>I agree it is a topic worth discussing and suggest we should
take the conversation to the public list. I assume that you'd
all be ok with me sharing your responses on this thread
publicly?</p>
<p>A 3rd option is to privately share number of votes for each
city with the city, but publicly only declare successful bids.</p>
<snip>
<p>Cheers, Cameron<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/12/2016 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EB4F11B2-67E1-4D4E-8EEE-06554887017A@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Good point Eli
Open or closed voting or even a change in process should be for the CC to decide on a year by year basis
Regards
Steven
+44 (0) 7958 924101
Sent from my iPhone
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 23 Dec 2016, at 17:18, Eli Adam <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us"><eadam@co.lincoln.or.us></a> wrote:
Some people have argued that the bidding process is over-competitive
and leads to a lot of work for an unsuccessful bid (only one bid will
be successful) and that we would be better off with a different
selection method that doesn't have multiple LOCs putting a lot of work
into an unsuccessful bid. I'm not sure that I see a clearly better
way while LOCs are still almost solely responsible for the success of
the conference. Getting voted out in stage 1 could be better for
community morale than getting voted out in stage 2.
I'm see both sides to public and private votes. I see both sides to
our current bidding method or another which doesn't have multiple LOCs
compete for one conference. I'm not sure which is better and don't
have a strong opinion on either right now. Both of these are leading
away from the current topic of the Conference Committee process.
Do we want to resolve the public or private nature of stage 1 and
stage 2 FOSS4G selection as part of the Conference Committee process?
Could that be left open and determined each year or at a later time?
Best regards, Eli
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it"><maria.brovelli@polimi.it></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In my opinion we have to evaluate if those numbers are useful for the
proposers or can be demotivating. Just an example: if we have two proposals,
one very good and the second which appears excellent, the vote can happen to
be completely unbalanced toward the latter proposal and the former proposers
can become demotivated and sad because of the low rank reached. A proposal
is a common fruit of a local community, which proudly wants to be
protagonist of our global activity. Is the count useful for the community?
Are there other points of view that I'm not able to see?
Best!
Maria
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Eli Adam <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us"><eadam@co.lincoln.or.us></a>
Data: 23/12/16 17:23 (GMT+01:00)
A: Venkatesh Raghavan <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp"><raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp></a>
Cc: Steven Feldman <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><shfeldman@gmail.com></a>, Cameron Shorter
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com"><cameron.shorter@gmail.com></a>, Maria Antonia Brovelli
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it"><maria.brovelli@polimi.it></a>
Oggetto: Re: Revised conference committee processes
In my memory (I didn't bother to check the archives), stage 1 was not
revealed until recently. However, stage 2 was often revealed because
it was a tie. Even in cases that it wasn't a tie I seem to recall
stage 2 results sometimes being public. I don't have a strong
preference either way, although see Venka's point for stage 1.
Best regards, Eli
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp"><raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Steven,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 12/23/2016 9:14 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
Venka
I do not understand why we would want to keep the number of votes cast in
stage 1 and 2 secret? It doesn’t feel a very transparent way to determine
one of the most important decisions that OSGeo makes each year.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">The number of votes received by bidding teams was never made public
until the 2018 bid (and there was no issue about that). One of the main
reason for not making the votes received by teams in stage-1 is
to keep the competition alive or the second 2.
You may recall that the chair of the Thai-team who withdrew from the stage
2 bid also suggested something to the similar effect.
Transparency in the FOSS4G selection process is necessary and has always
existed,
but I do not think that declaring number of votes is necessary and was
never
done
(except for the 2018 bid).
Best
Venka
[1]
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html">https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Can you explain?
______
Steven
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Venkatesh Raghavan
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp"><raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp></a> wrote:
Hi Cameron and all,
<snip>
Regarding the FOSS4G selection, I would like to
suggest that the number of votes received by
each team should never be declared and only
know to the CRO. It is adequate to declare the
teams that are short-listed in Stage-1, without
mentioning which team got how many votes.
Also, the ultimate winner is stage-2 can be declared
without revealing the number of votes received.
Best
Venka</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254</pre>
</body>
</html>