<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Eli,</p>
<p>Excellent points you've made.</p>
<p>If I may add to your list of selection criteria - the obvious
missing item to me is "conference sustainability". In my eyes the
Halifax bid had stronger sustainability plans and ethos behind it,
but the CC overwhelmingly voted for Calgary, which suggests this
wasn't something that was was given much weight in the voting.</p>
<p>I'm hoping Calgary can take their already good start down that
road and pick up some of the addition notions that the Halifax LoC
had.<br>
</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Jonathan<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-12-18 17:15, Eli Adam wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACqBkM_VjDga9DOJVrzUruwQGme2UTxGUuLe1tWGrqNXqqOeMw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span
style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">Given
the quality of both proposals for 2020, I've been
thinking a lot about the best criteria to make a
decision. </span>Since about 2014 and possibly before,
I think that the FOSS4G selection process does not serve
our community or the conference as well as it could [1].
The selection process may also have harmful side effects.
Due to my personal involvement with 2014, I'll keep most
of my comments oriented towards 2014 but it has been
applicable to other years as well. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What are valid criteria for selecting the FOSS4G LOC?
The criteria I personally have used are that FOSS4G is
OSGeo's primary source of income and thus very important.
The conference should have a high probability of success
and low risk. I look at the budget, how reasonable I
think the numbers are, and if there are any objectionable
contracts (usually hotel block commitments). I look at
the LOC members and their experience. I also look at the
geography of past conferences and value bringing FOSS4G to
a new region. Beyond that, I have not been able to come
up with additional selection criteria that I consider
valid. What do others think? I'd like to add to this
list. Recapping the criteria, that is:</div>
<div>1) High probability of success</div>
<div>2) low risk</div>
<div>3) reasonable budget</div>
<div>4) absence of objectionable contracts</div>
<div>5) LOC experience</div>
<div>6) FOSS4G geography and history</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(I also have personal preferences like where I might
have a free place to stay, what's a cheaper travel option,
who I know, etc but don't consider those valid criteria.
And purposely don't vote on those items.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Given those valid criteria, I often evaluate all the
FOSS4G proposals as extremely good. Each having extremely
high probability of success and relatively low risk. In
many years, I've not really found valid reasons to select
one proposal over another. I found that to be the case
even when I was on the LOC of one of the proposals! </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>While a member of the 2014 LOC during the bid process,
I could not honestly assert that the PDX proposal was any
better than the DC proposal. Obviously as a member of the
PDX LOC, I was in favor of ours, but that self-serving
interest is not a valid basis. Both proposals would have
led to great conferences with high probability of success,
low risk, realistic budgets, no objectionable contracts,
great LOC experience, and FOSS4G geography. I've found
this near-equivalence of proposals to be the case in more
than one subsequent year. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With proposals of near-equivalence, I see no point in
voting and selecting one. This leads to putting two
spatial centers of great OSGeo and FOSS4G enthusiasm into
opposition. This competing is not the typical
collaborative OSGeo and FOSS4G way. It is in fact perhaps
contrary to the manner in which we build software
together. With the FOSS4G selection method we use now, we
invariably greatly disappoint one of the proposal groups.
We also are creating a lot of waste and wasted effort.
I'd like to see a conference selection method that more
closely matches the collaborative spirit in which we
approach other endeavors. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How our current selection method fails to best serve
the conference or our community and possible harmful side
effects:</div>
<div>
<div
style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">1.
Makes something trivial overly important. </div>
<div
style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">2.
Creates divisions</div>
<div
style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">3.
Zero-sum competition (as opposed to the competition of
the old WMS shootouts which were beneficial to all the
softwares and users of the software). </div>
<div
style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">4.
Does not mirror our collaborative approach to software
development and other collaborative activities. </div>
<div
style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">5.
Disappoints a group and region</div>
<div
style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">6.
Fails to make use of great potential. </div>
<div
style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">7.
Does not make a better conference based on the above
criteria</div>
<br>
</div>
<div><span
style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">I
take FOSS4G selection more seriously than anything else
that OSGeo does. FOSS4G selection is more important
than anything that the Board will do in the next year.
OSGeo's (financial) existence depends on the FOSS4G
selection. Therefore I'd like us to re-examine how we
make the selection. </span>I'd like to consider a new
FOSS4G selection method. Would you like to see a new
FOSS4G selection method? What would that look like?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is an off-handed critique I leveled in private
conversation which I'll quote: "If we were a competent
organization, we would recognize that there is demand for
TWO successful conferences in Canada. We would on the
basis of costs and other advantages, select one for 2020
and the other for a 2021 regional conference (the 2021
"regional" conference may actually be "better" by
following after the other and building on the enthusiasm
and having another year of planning.)" I've not been
involved with the FOSS4GNA organizing but perhaps these
efforts could be harmonized in some manner? I'm not
really knowledgeable on this topic, so someone
knowledgeable should talk about this. While I'm straying
from 2014 commentary, I'll also comment that these two
2020 proposals for a North American year were strikingly
similar. Both are in Canada (I would have expected at
least one US entry before two from Canada), both are
taking the novel approach of in-housing the PCO services,
and both rate well on the above valid criteria. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[1] Previous thoughts about ties but similar to these
thoughts. <a
href="https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2014-February/006720.html"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2014-February/006720.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards, Eli</div>
<br
class="m_8313880801009658733gmail-m_8535804792608316415m_-7257744286797090046gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<input name="virtru-metadata"
value="{"email-policy":{"state":"closed","expirationUnit":"days","disableCopyPaste":false,"disablePrint":false,"disableForwarding":false,"enableNoauth":false,"expires":false,"isManaged":false},"attachments":{},"compose-id":"4","compose-window":{"secure":false}}"
type="hidden"></div>
</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>