<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>Peter,</p>
    <p>thanks for that input - I also like the idea.</p>
    <p>Personnally I als prefer the situation, that there is a
      competition.</p>
    <p>I call up a vote for this new, stage 1 voting system ;-)</p>
    <p>Till<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.09.2017 um 20:25 schrieb Peter
      Batty:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPJXf1Wb-zuvQL0s04o6RL8ErjNaa0LRccUeTrij0Ng+9GhExA@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">I'm glad Darrell has raised this as I have felt a
        bit uncomfortable with the way that the first round of voting
        works. The general aim with introducing the two stage selection
        process was to avoid a team having to put in extensive work on a
        detailed proposal if they didn't have a realistic chance of
        being accepted. However, I think we also want to ensure
        reasonable competition to help maintain the high standards that
        we have for FOSS4G events, so unless there was some unusual
        situation I would generally hope to have at least two detailed
        proposals to evaluate.
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>The current single vote in the first round I find quite
          limiting. If I think that two out of three initial proposals
          are strong and I would like to see a more detailed version of
          both to evaluate, but that a third one is weak and not a
          realistic option, I have no way to express that with one vote.
          On a couple of occasions I have found myself voting tactically
          in the first round, for what is my second choice based on
          initial information, as I would like to try to make sure that
          we see detailed proposals from both of my top 2 preferences -
          which is an approach that is not satisfactory and may or may
          not work!</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>So I like Darrell's suggestion that for the first round,
          each committee member should vote yes or no on each initial
          proposal to indicate if they would like to see a more detailed
          proposal from that team. I think there would be various ways
          we could make the cut after that vote. It could be all teams
          greater than 50% as Darrell suggested. We could also specify a
          maximum number, say at most 3 teams based on who got the most
          votes. Or we could just go for the top 2 or 3 or whatever
          based on total votes without a specific threshold.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Cheers,</div>
        <div>    Peter.</div>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:20 AM,
          Darrell Fuhriman <span dir="ltr"><<a
              href="mailto:darrell@garnix.org" target="_blank"
              moz-do-not-send="true">darrell@garnix.org</a>></span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">An
            alternative voting option is everyone gives an up or down
            vote on each proposal. Every proposal getting >50% (or
            whatever threshold) up votes proceeds to the next round.<br>
            <span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
                d.<br>
              </font></span>
            <div class="HOEnZb">
              <div class="h5"><br>
                <br>
                <br>
                > On Sep 4, 2017, at 08:24, Venkatesh Raghavan <<a
                  href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a>>
                wrote:<br>
                ><br>
                >> On 9/5/2017 12:01 AM, Till Adams wrote:<br>
                >> I  think publishing the vote results and the
                min. number of votes to<br>
                >> pass the first threshold are two pair of shoes.<br>
                ><br>
                > I agree. On a lighter vein, it should be one pair
                of shoes.<br>
                ><br>
                >><br>
                >> I like the idea of a min. of 3 votes, but I
                prefer not to publish the<br>
                >> results.<br>
                >><br>
                >> Should we vote on the min. number of votes as
                well?<br>
                ><br>
                > I do not feel that vote on min. number of votes is
                necessary.<br>
                ><br>
                > Best<br>
                ><br>
                > Venka<br>
                ><br>
                >><br>
                >> Till<br>
                >><br>
                >><br>
                >><br>
                >><br>
                >>> Am 04.09.2017 um 16:39 schrieb
                stevenfeldman:<br>
                >>> Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing
                the vote numbers at any stage. "<br>
                >>><br>
                >>> My suggestion to publish LoI votes was
                based on the very low threshold for<br>
                >>> inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only
                needs 2 votes to go on to the<br>
                >>> next stage we may be putting a team to a
                lot of work in preparing a full<br>
                >>> proposal when they have little chance of
                being successful, hence my<br>
                >>> suggestion.<br>
                >>><br>
                >>> We could also address this by requiring an
                LoI to receive at least 20% of<br>
                >>> the votes cast by the committee at the
                first stage.<br>
                >>><br>
                >>> Re the final vote on proposals, I think it
                is helpful to those who have not<br>
                >>> succeeded to understand how the voting
                worked.<br>
                >>><br>
                >>> In general we as a community prefer
                transparency, I am surprised that on<br>
                >>> this important topic some would prefer the
                results of the conference<br>
                >>> committee votes to remain a secret. I vote
                against this suggestion<br>
                >>><br>
                >>> Steven<br>
                >>><br>
                >>><br>
                >>><br>
                >>><br>
                >>><br>
                >>><br>
                >>> --<br>
                >>> Sent from: <a
href="http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html"
                  rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.<wbr>nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-<wbr>Committee-f3721662.html</a><br>
                >>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
                >>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
                >>> <a
                  href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
                >>> <a
                  href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev"
                  rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a><br>
                >><br>
                >> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
                >> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
                >> <a
                  href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
                >> <a
                  href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev"
                  rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a><br>
                >><br>
                ><br>
                > ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
                > Conference_dev mailing list<br>
                > <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
                > <a
                  href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev"
                  rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a><br>
                <br>
                ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
                Conference_dev mailing list<br>
                <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
                <a
                  href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev"
                  rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr>dev</a></div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>