<div dir="ltr">ugh,<div>here my +1 for the new voting system</div><div><br></div><div>J</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">út 5. 9. 2017 v 8:33 odesílatel Till Adams <<a href="mailto:till.adams@fossgis.de">till.adams@fossgis.de</a>> napsal:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div 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></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Till<br>
</p></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_-932348588673225797moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.09.2017 um 20:25 schrieb Peter
Batty:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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">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="m_-932348588673225797HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
d.<br>
</font></span>
<div class="m_-932348588673225797HOEnZb">
<div class="m_-932348588673225797h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 08:24, Venkatesh Raghavan <<a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank">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">http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html</a><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-932348588673225797mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a class="m_-932348588673225797moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="m_-932348588673225797moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></blockquote></div></div></div>