<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>1) If we wanted to provide the votes, it would be better to add (as we want also to help the proposers) a motivation in such a way that the proposers understand what they have to improve. The list of short individual anonymous motivations can be provided by the committee in such a way that the proposers can verify if and how they can improve the proposal.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">2) I was thinking that probably it is the time of discussing again about the three options ( NA, Eu, the rest of the World). Why to be so rigid? At the end of the day we are weighting NA and Eu as the whole rest of the world. But in terms of population this is definitely wrong. Shall we start making new hypothesis about that subdivision?</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Cheers,</div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Maria </div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br><div><b style="font-size: 13pt; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">----------------------------------------------------</b></div><div><div id="Signature"><div name="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="margin: 0px;"><div><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/137617942@N02/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/137617942@N02/</a></div><div><br></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli<br>Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor<br>Politecnico di Milano</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">ISPRS WG IV/5 "Web and Cloud Based Geospatial Services and Applications"; OSGeo; GeoForAll Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET </span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Sol Katz Award 2015</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div></div><div name="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="margin: 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><font><font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><a href="x-apple-data-detectors://1/0" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="address" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1/0">Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO</a> (ITALY)</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">Tel. <a href="tel:+39-031-3327336" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1/1">+39-031-3327336</a> - Mob. <a href="tel:+39-328-0023867" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1/2">+39-328-0023867</a> - fax. <a href="tel:+39-031-3327321" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1/3">+39-031-3327321</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">e-mail1: <a id="NoLP" href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it" tabindex="0"></a><a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1/4">maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><a id="NoLP" tabindex="0">e-mail2</a>: <a href="mailto:prorettrice@como.polimi.it" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="2">prorettrice@como.polimi.it</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br></p></font></font></span></div></div></div></div><div><br>Il giorno 29 dic 2016, alle ore 01:12, Venkatesh Raghavan <<a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com">venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a>> ha scritto:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>I am not in favor of disclosing the number of votes</span><br><span>received by teams responding to RFP.</span><br><span></span><br><span>This is mainly to keep the competition alive.</span><br><span>This was the practice till our 2017 selection</span><br><span>process and we had not received any suggestion</span><br><span>on the contrary. The chair of the Thai team</span><br><span>for the 2018 RFP has also suggested that</span><br><span>number of votes need not be make public.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Best</span><br><span></span><br><span>Venka</span><br><span></span><br><span>On 12/29/2016 2:23 AM, <a href="mailto:shshin@gaia3d.com">shshin@gaia3d.com</a> wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dear All,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I am also in favour of disclosing the votes results publically for both stage 1 and 2. This will increases transparency and will eliminate unnecessary misunderstanding around bidding process. Also this could be a part of RfP each year.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Kind regards,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>신상희 드림</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>---</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Shin, Sanghee</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://www.gaia3d.com">http://www.gaia3d.com</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>보낸 사람: Steven Feldman</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>보낸 날짜: 2016년 12월 28일 수요일 오후 5:29</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>받는 사람: conference</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>제목: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of votecount?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I think votes should be shared publicly. Openness in our decision making process should be a guiding principle.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Perhaps the CC should review this as part of the preparation for the RfP each year.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>______</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Steven</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 27 Dec 2016, at 02:29, Cameron Shorter <<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Conference committee,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Should vote counts for cities bidding for FOSS4G be shared, either publicly or privately?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>This question is applicable for both stage 1 and stage 2 voting.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Options suggested so far:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>1. Results of vote are publicly announced, number of votes for each city is not shared.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>2. Additionally, each city is privately notified of votes for each city.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>3. Additionally, votes for each city is shared publicly.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>--</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>This question was raised while refining FOSS4G committee discussions. (Discussions were initially private to reduce email fatigue). Discussion so far is shared below.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I'll hold this thread open for two weeks for discussion, until 10 Jan, then raise a motion to be voted on.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 24/12/2016 5:48 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Venka,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><snip></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>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).</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>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?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>A 3rd option is to privately share number of votes for each city with the city, but publicly only declare successful bids.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><snip></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Cheers, Cameron</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 24/12/2016 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Good point Eli</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Open or closed voting or even a change in process should be for the CC to decide on a year by year basis</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Regards</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Steven</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>+44 (0) 7958 924101</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent from my iPhone</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 23 Dec 2016, at 17:18, Eli Adam <<a href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us">eadam@co.lincoln.or.us</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Some people have argued that the bidding process is over-competitive</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>and leads to a lot of work for an unsuccessful bid (only one bid will</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>be successful) and that we would be better off with a different</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>selection method that doesn't have multiple LOCs putting a lot of work</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>into an unsuccessful bid. I'm not sure that I see a clearly better</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>way while LOCs are still almost solely responsible for the success of</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>the conference. Getting voted out in stage 1 could be better for</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>community morale than getting voted out in stage 2.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I'm see both sides to public and private votes. I see both sides to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>our current bidding method or another which doesn't have multiple LOCs</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>compete for one conference. I'm not sure which is better and don't</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>have a strong opinion on either right now. Both of these are leading</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>away from the current topic of the Conference Committee process.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Do we want to resolve the public or private nature of stage 1 and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>stage 2 FOSS4G selection as part of the Conference Committee process?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Could that be left open and determined each year or at a later time?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Best regards, Eli</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it">maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In my opinion we have to evaluate if those numbers are useful for the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>proposers or can be demotivating. Just an example: if we have two proposals,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>one very good and the second which appears excellent, the vote can happen to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>be completely unbalanced toward the latter proposal and the former proposers</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>can become demotivated and sad because of the low rank reached. A proposal</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>is a common fruit of a local community, which proudly wants to be</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>protagonist of our global activity. Is the count useful for the community?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Are there other points of view that I'm not able to see?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Best!</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Maria</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>-------- Messaggio originale --------</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Da: Eli Adam <<a href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us">eadam@co.lincoln.or.us</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Data: 23/12/16 17:23 (GMT+01:00)</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>A: Venkatesh Raghavan <<a href="mailto:raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp">raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Cc: Steven Feldman <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>>, Cameron Shorter</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>>, Maria Antonia Brovelli</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it">maria.brovelli@polimi.it</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Oggetto: Re: Revised conference committee processes</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In my memory (I didn't bother to check the archives), stage 1 was not</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>revealed until recently. However, stage 2 was often revealed because</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>it was a tie. Even in cases that it wasn't a tie I seem to recall</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>stage 2 results sometimes being public. I don't have a strong</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>preference either way, although see Venka's point for stage 1.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Best regards, Eli</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp">raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Steven,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 12/23/2016 9:14 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Venka</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I do not understand why we would want to keep the number of votes cast in</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>stage 1 and 2 secret? It doesn’t feel a very transparent way to determine</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>one of the most important decisions that OSGeo makes each year.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>The number of votes received by bidding teams was never made public</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>until the 2018 bid (and there was no issue about that). One of the main</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>reason for not making the votes received by teams in stage-1 is</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>to keep the competition alive or the second 2.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>You may recall that the chair of the Thai-team who withdrew from the stage</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>2 bid also suggested something to the similar effect.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Transparency in the FOSS4G selection process is necessary and has always</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>existed,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>but I do not think that declaring number of votes is necessary and was</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>never</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>done</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>(except for the 2018 bid).</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Best</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Venka</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>[1]</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html">https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Can you explain?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>______</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Steven</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Venkatesh Raghavan</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp">raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Hi Cameron and all,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><snip></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Regarding the FOSS4G selection, I would like to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>suggest that the number of votes received by</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>each team should never be declared and only</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>know to the CRO. It is adequate to declare the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>teams that are short-listed in Stage-1, without</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>mentioning which team got how many votes.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Also, the ultimate winner is stage-2 can be declared</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>without revealing the number of votes received.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Best</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Venka</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Conference_dev mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Conference_dev mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>