<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Jachym,</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAZUH4HBT5gagzABQ9DqKa7uv_4KWHTbOss+A24JBRrp7n-c6A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>If I understand it correctly: Having 50% quota for the next
round and having each committee member as many votes, as there
are candidates (so you could put one vote to each proposal)
would do the job?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
correct. Every CC member has one vote per LoI. Your choice is "yes"
or "no" (or thumb up or down or however you call it ;-)).<br>
<br>
I already called for a vote on this as well (se my mail from
yesterday)<br>
<br>
Till<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAZUH4HBT5gagzABQ9DqKa7uv_4KWHTbOss+A24JBRrp7n-c6A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>J</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">st 6. 9. 2017 v 8:28 odesílatel Till Adams <<a
href="mailto:till.adams@fossgis.de" moz-do-not-send="true">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">Eli,<br>
<br>
that is my experience, call for a vote, ad discussion goes on.
I think<br>
we are all more or less of the same opinion, that voting
results should<br>
*not* be published. I also think, that happened accidentally
last time.<br>
So no worries here.<br>
<br>
Till<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 05.09.2017 um 17:41 schrieb Eli Adam:<br>
> What is that status of this motion, "I would propose
*not* to publish<br>
> the number of votes on LoI's as we did (presumably
accidentally) for<br>
> the 2018 RfP"? Failed? Passed? Withdrawn?<br>
><br>
> In my mind we are really in the discussion phase and
should not yet be<br>
> voting. Although, honestly, this email list gets the
most discussion<br>
> participation once a vote is called, so maybe calling
votes is the<br>
> only way to get wide participation in discussion.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Best regards, Eli<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Till Adams <<a
href="mailto:till.adams@fossgis.de" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">till.adams@fossgis.de</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Peter,<br>
>><br>
>> thanks for that input - I also like the idea.<br>
>><br>
>> Personnally I als prefer the situation, that there is
a competition.<br>
>><br>
>> I call up a vote for this new, stage 1 voting system
;-)<br>
>><br>
>> Till<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Am 04.09.2017 um 20:25 schrieb Peter Batty:<br>
>><br>
>> I'm glad Darrell has raised this as I have felt a bit
uncomfortable with the<br>
>> way that the first round of voting works. The general
aim with introducing<br>
>> the two stage selection process was to avoid a team
having to put in<br>
>> extensive work on a detailed proposal if they didn't
have a realistic chance<br>
>> of being accepted. However, I think we also want to
ensure reasonable<br>
>> competition to help maintain the high standards that
we have for FOSS4G<br>
>> events, so unless there was some unusual situation I
would generally hope to<br>
>> have at least two detailed proposals to evaluate.<br>
>><br>
>> The current single vote in the first round I find
quite limiting. If I think<br>
>> that two out of three initial proposals are strong
and I would like to see a<br>
>> more detailed version of both to evaluate, but that a
third one is weak and<br>
>> not a realistic option, I have no way to express that
with one vote. On a<br>
>> couple of occasions I have found myself voting
tactically in the first<br>
>> round, for what is my second choice based on initial
information, as I would<br>
>> like to try to make sure that we see detailed
proposals from both of my top<br>
>> 2 preferences - which is an approach that is not
satisfactory and may or may<br>
>> not work!<br>
>><br>
>> So I like Darrell's suggestion that for the first
round, each committee<br>
>> member should vote yes or no on each initial proposal
to indicate if they<br>
>> would like to see a more detailed proposal from that
team. I think there<br>
>> would be various ways we could make the cut after
that vote. It could be all<br>
>> teams greater than 50% as Darrell suggested. We could
also specify a maximum<br>
>> number, say at most 3 teams based on who got the most
votes. Or we could<br>
>> just go for the top 2 or 3 or whatever based on total
votes without a<br>
>> specific threshold.<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>> Peter.<br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Darrell Fuhriman
<<a href="mailto:darrell@garnix.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">darrell@garnix.org</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>>> An alternative voting option is everyone gives an
up or down vote on each<br>
>>> proposal. Every proposal getting >50% (or
whatever threshold) up votes<br>
>>> proceeds to the next round.<br>
>>><br>
>>> d.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 08:24, Venkatesh Raghavan
<<a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>> 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>
>>>> I agree. On a lighter vein, it should be one
pair of shoes.<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>
>>>> I do not feel that vote on min. number of
votes is necessary.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Best<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Venka<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<br>
>>>>>> stage. "<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> My suggestion to publish LoI votes
was based on the very low threshold<br>
>>>>>> for<br>
>>>>>> inclusion in the next stage. If an
LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to<br>
>>>>>> the<br>
>>>>>> next stage we may be putting a team
to a lot of work in preparing a<br>
>>>>>> 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%<br>
>>>>>> 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<br>
>>>>>> have not<br>
>>>>>> succeeded to understand how the
voting worked.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> In general we as a community prefer
transparency, I am surprised that<br>
>>>>>> 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:<br>
>>>>>> <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.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"
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/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a
href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank"
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/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>>> <a
href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank"
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/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"
target="_blank" 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/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"
target="_blank" 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/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"
target="_blank" 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/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"
target="_blank" 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/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>