<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">
<p>You are definitely right about point 2. Thanks for the suggestion.</p>
<p>Better to wait the end of this thread and then I will start the new one.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Maria</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="Signature">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<div name="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:; margin:0">
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><span style="background-color:rgb(204,153,255)"><font color="000000"><b><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">----------------------------------------------------</span></b></font></span></font></div>
<div name="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:; margin:0">
Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli<br>
<div><font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor<br>
Politecnico di Milano</font></div>
<font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><span style="background-color:rgb(204,153,255)"><font color="000000"><b><span style="background-color:rgb(0,255,255)"></span></b></font></span></font><font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span><span style="font-size:8pt">ISPRS WG IV/4"</span><span style="font-size:8pt">Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)</span><span style="font-size:8pt">"</span> <a href="http://www2.isprs.org/commissions/comm4/wg4.html" class="OWAAutoLink" id="LPNoLP">http://www2.isprs.org/commissions/comm4/wg4.html</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>OSGeo; </span><span>ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory <font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Board</font>; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge;
</span><span>SIFET </span></p>
</span></font></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"><span><b><font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Sol<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"> Katz<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">
<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Award<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"> 2015</font></font></font></font></font></b></span></font></font><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITAL<font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">Y</font>)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob.</span><span> +39-328-0023867 -
</span><span>fax. <font color="000000">+39-031-3327321</font></span></p>
<font color="000000"></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span>e-mail1: <a href="mailto:maria.brovelli@polimi.it" tabindex="0" id="LPNoLP"></a><font color="333333"><font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">maria.brovelli@polimi.it</font></font></span></p>
<font color="000000"></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span><a tabindex="0" id="LPNoLP">e-mail2</a>:</span><span>
<font color="333333"><font face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif">prorettrice@como.polimi.it</font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><br>
<br>
</p>
<font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><font size="3" face="'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif"> </font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>Da:</b> Eli Adam <eadam@co.lincoln.or.us><br>
<b>Inviato:</b> giovedì 29 dicembre 2016 17.14<br>
<b>A:</b> Maria Antonia Brovelli<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Venkatesh Raghavan; conference<br>
<b>Oggetto:</b> Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of votecount?</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Polimi <maria.brovelli@polimi.it> wrote:<br>
> 1) If we wanted to provide the votes, it would be better to add (as we want<br>
> also to help the proposers) a motivation in such a way that the proposers<br>
> understand what they have to improve. The list of short individual anonymous<br>
> motivations can be provided by the committee in such a way that the<br>
> proposers can verify if and how they can improve the proposal.<br>
<br>
We could provide it non-anonymous as well. Or we can provide an<br>
opportunity for teams to discuss with Conference Committee members.<br>
<br>
In my experience reading bids, we often have multiple very good bids<br>
which could all be successful. Sometimes the deciding factor for me<br>
is geography, geography of recent conferences, experience of members<br>
on the LOC, philosophical presentation of core OSGeo and FOSS4G<br>
aspects, timing, or other minor aspects. These are all things that<br>
can't readily be 'improved' and typically, the bids were a very good<br>
bid to begin with and don't necessarily need 'improvement'.<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> 2) I was thinking that probably it is the time of discussing again about the<br>
> three options ( NA, Eu, the rest of the World). Why to be so rigid? At the<br>
> end of the day we are weighting NA and Eu as the whole rest of the world.<br>
> But in terms of population this is definitely wrong. Shall we start making<br>
> new hypothesis about that subdivision?<br>
<br>
This discussion might be better on a separate thread since this thread<br>
is about, "Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of vote<br>
count?". We don't want to hijack this current discussion thread or<br>
short this potential future discussion thread of its proper attention.<br>
<br>
Best regards, Eli<br>
<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Maria<br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------<br>
> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/137617942@N02/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/137617942@N02/</a><br>
><br>
> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli<br>
> Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor<br>
> Politecnico di Milano<br>
><br>
> ISPRS WG IV/5 "Web and Cloud Based Geospatial Services and Applications";<br>
> OSGeo; GeoForAll Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET<br>
><br>
> Sol Katz Award 2015<br>
><br>
> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)<br>
><br>
> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321<br>
><br>
> e-mail1: maria.brovelli@polimi.it<br>
><br>
> e-mail2: prorettrice@como.polimi.it<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Il giorno 29 dic 2016, alle ore 01:12, Venkatesh Raghavan<br>
> <venka.osgeo@gmail.com> ha scritto:<br>
><br>
> I am not in favor of disclosing the number of votes<br>
> received by teams responding to RFP.<br>
><br>
> This is mainly to keep the competition alive.<br>
> This was the practice till our 2017 selection<br>
> process and we had not received any suggestion<br>
> on the contrary. The chair of the Thai team<br>
> for the 2018 RFP has also suggested that<br>
> number of votes need not be make public.<br>
><br>
> Best<br>
><br>
> Venka<br>
><br>
> On 12/29/2016 2:23 AM, shshin@gaia3d.com wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear All,<br>
><br>
><br>
> I am also in favour of disclosing the votes results publically for both<br>
> stage 1 and 2. This will increases transparency and will eliminate<br>
> unnecessary misunderstanding around bidding process. Also this could be a<br>
> part of RfP each year.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Kind regards,<br>
><br>
> 신상희 드림<br>
><br>
> ---<br>
><br>
> Shin, Sanghee<br>
><br>
> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.gaia3d.com">http://www.gaia3d.com</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> 보낸 사람: Steven Feldman<br>
><br>
> 보낸 날짜: 2016년 12월 28일 수요일 오후 5:29<br>
><br>
> 받는 사람: conference<br>
><br>
> 제목: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of<br>
> votecount?<br>
><br>
><br>
> I think votes should be shared publicly. Openness in our decision making<br>
> process should be a guiding principle.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Perhaps the CC should review this as part of the preparation for the RfP<br>
> each year.<br>
><br>
> ______<br>
><br>
> Steven<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 27 Dec 2016, at 02:29, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Conference committee,<br>
><br>
> Should vote counts for cities bidding for FOSS4G be shared, either publicly<br>
> or privately?<br>
><br>
> This question is applicable for both stage 1 and stage 2 voting.<br>
><br>
> Options suggested so far:<br>
><br>
> 1. Results of vote are publicly announced, number of votes for each city is<br>
> not shared.<br>
><br>
> 2. Additionally, each city is privately notified of votes for each city.<br>
><br>
> 3. Additionally, votes for each city is shared publicly.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> This question was raised while refining FOSS4G committee discussions.<br>
> (Discussions were initially private to reduce email fatigue). Discussion so<br>
> far is shared below.<br>
><br>
> I'll hold this thread open for two weeks for discussion, until 10 Jan, then<br>
> raise a motion to be voted on.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 24/12/2016 5:48 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>
><br>
> Venka,<br>
><br>
> <snip><br>
><br>
> With regards to publishing the results of FOSS4G votes, I suggest that this<br>
> should be described in the FOSS4G RFP document rather than here. (We should<br>
> only describe in one place, and it should be easily found by cities looking<br>
> to vote).<br>
><br>
> I agree it is a topic worth discussing and suggest we should take the<br>
> conversation to the public list. I assume that you'd all be ok with me<br>
> sharing your responses on this thread publicly?<br>
><br>
> A 3rd option is to privately share number of votes for each city with the<br>
> city, but publicly only declare successful bids.<br>
><br>
> <snip><br>
><br>
> Cheers, Cameron<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 24/12/2016 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:<br>
><br>
> Good point Eli<br>
><br>
><br>
> Open or closed voting or even a change in process should be for the CC to<br>
> decide on a year by year basis<br>
><br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> Steven<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> +44 (0) 7958 924101<br>
><br>
> Sent from my iPhone<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 23 Dec 2016, at 17:18, Eli Adam <eadam@co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Some people have argued that the bidding process is over-competitive<br>
><br>
> and leads to a lot of work for an unsuccessful bid (only one bid will<br>
><br>
> be successful) and that we would be better off with a different<br>
><br>
> selection method that doesn't have multiple LOCs putting a lot of work<br>
><br>
> into an unsuccessful bid. I'm not sure that I see a clearly better<br>
><br>
> way while LOCs are still almost solely responsible for the success of<br>
><br>
> the conference. Getting voted out in stage 1 could be better for<br>
><br>
> community morale than getting voted out in stage 2.<br>
><br>
><br>
> I'm see both sides to public and private votes. I see both sides to<br>
><br>
> our current bidding method or another which doesn't have multiple LOCs<br>
><br>
> compete for one conference. I'm not sure which is better and don't<br>
><br>
> have a strong opinion on either right now. Both of these are leading<br>
><br>
> away from the current topic of the Conference Committee process.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Do we want to resolve the public or private nature of stage 1 and<br>
><br>
> stage 2 FOSS4G selection as part of the Conference Committee process?<br>
><br>
> Could that be left open and determined each year or at a later time?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Best regards, Eli<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli<br>
><br>
> <maria.brovelli@polimi.it> wrote:<br>
><br>
> In my opinion we have to evaluate if those numbers are useful for the<br>
><br>
> proposers or can be demotivating. Just an example: if we have two proposals,<br>
><br>
> one very good and the second which appears excellent, the vote can happen to<br>
><br>
> be completely unbalanced toward the latter proposal and the former proposers<br>
><br>
> can become demotivated and sad because of the low rank reached. A proposal<br>
><br>
> is a common fruit of a local community, which proudly wants to be<br>
><br>
> protagonist of our global activity. Is the count useful for the community?<br>
><br>
> Are there other points of view that I'm not able to see?<br>
><br>
> Best!<br>
><br>
> Maria<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------<br>
><br>
> Da: Eli Adam <eadam@co.lincoln.or.us><br>
><br>
> Data: 23/12/16 17:23 (GMT+01:00)<br>
><br>
> A: Venkatesh Raghavan <raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp><br>
><br>
> Cc: Steven Feldman <shfeldman@gmail.com>, Cameron Shorter<br>
><br>
> <cameron.shorter@gmail.com>, Maria Antonia Brovelli<br>
><br>
> <maria.brovelli@polimi.it><br>
><br>
> Oggetto: Re: Revised conference committee processes<br>
><br>
><br>
> In my memory (I didn't bother to check the archives), stage 1 was not<br>
><br>
> revealed until recently. However, stage 2 was often revealed because<br>
><br>
> it was a tie. Even in cases that it wasn't a tie I seem to recall<br>
><br>
> stage 2 results sometimes being public. I don't have a strong<br>
><br>
> preference either way, although see Venka's point for stage 1.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Best regards, Eli<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan<br>
><br>
> <raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Steven,<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 12/23/2016 9:14 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Venka<br>
><br>
><br>
> I do not understand why we would want to keep the number of votes cast in<br>
><br>
> stage 1 and 2 secret? It doesn’t feel a very transparent way to determine<br>
><br>
> one of the most important decisions that OSGeo makes each year.<br>
><br>
> The number of votes received by bidding teams was never made public<br>
><br>
> until the 2018 bid (and there was no issue about that). One of the main<br>
><br>
> reason for not making the votes received by teams in stage-1 is<br>
><br>
> to keep the competition alive or the second 2.<br>
><br>
><br>
> You may recall that the chair of the Thai-team who withdrew from the stage<br>
><br>
> 2 bid also suggested something to the similar effect.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Transparency in the FOSS4G selection process is necessary and has always<br>
><br>
> existed,<br>
><br>
> but I do not think that declaring number of votes is necessary and was<br>
><br>
> never<br>
><br>
> done<br>
><br>
> (except for the 2018 bid).<br>
><br>
><br>
> Best<br>
><br>
><br>
> Venka<br>
><br>
><br>
> [1]<br>
><br>
> <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><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Can you explain?<br>
><br>
> ______<br>
><br>
> Steven<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Venkatesh Raghavan<br>
><br>
> <raghavan@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Hi Cameron and all,<br>
><br>
><br>
> <snip><br>
><br>
><br>
> Regarding the FOSS4G selection, I would like to<br>
><br>
> suggest that the number of votes received by<br>
><br>
> each team should never be declared and only<br>
><br>
> know to the CRO. It is adequate to declare the<br>
><br>
> teams that are short-listed in Stage-1, without<br>
><br>
> mentioning which team got how many votes.<br>
><br>
> Also, the ultimate winner is stage-2 can be declared<br>
><br>
> without revealing the number of votes received.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Best<br>
><br>
><br>
> Venka<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
><br>
> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
><br>
> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>