<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi List,</p>
<p>Moving this across from the conference list as it seems like a
broader OSGeo question about how FOSS4G proposals are selected.</p>
<p>My question: do we know *why* Auckland, New Zealand won? As in, <i><b>why</b></i>
they got the votes they did?</p>
<p>If both proposals were excellent, as everyone has said, then in
this era of an ever worsening climate, and explicit and repeated
warnings from the likes of the IPCC for decades now, surely the
one that's not several thousand km from any real population should
have won?</p>
<p>As I've stated a few times over the past decade: this is a
remarkably closed process for an organisation that's built around
the concept of open-ness.</p>
<p>Surely a more transparent option is to use a public scoring
mechanism for the proposals? As my internet is still broken, I can
only google around a little, but there are a few scoring
spreadsheets out there. An example:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j1sV1iHfV0b2ZYZbyzdquXIIjFp7LHyLNiRtw3mIdPg/edit">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j1sV1iHfV0b2ZYZbyzdquXIIjFp7LHyLNiRtw3mIdPg/edit</a>
- and have the conference committee put their scores into the
respective boxes, the spreadsheets does some maths and a few
milliseconds later you have a score.<br>
</p>
<p>I presume other open-source conferences have solved this problem
too; anyone know how?<br>
</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Jonathan</p>
<p>(Disclosure: I have no oar in any conference proposal; just a
concerned citizen of the Earth, aghast at another couple thousand
tons of CO2e being needlessly emitted.)<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2024-06-04 06:23, Vasile Craciunescu
via Conference_dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:64be3b9c-d271-4bd9-a0fc-7a4916c14193@geo-spatial.org">Dear
all,
<br>
<br>
After one of the most competitive bids in our history, we have a
winner for FOSS4G 2025. The conference will go to Auckland, New
Zealand. Auckland LOC did great and the Conference Committee
decided to entrust them with responsibility of organizing the most
important event in our community. But, as you can see below, the
vote was very tight! Both proposals were amazingly good. It's such
a pity to have just one winner. The voter's opinion in this matter
was already highlighted by Codrina. As a Conference Committee,
let's have a discussion with the Hiroshima LOC as soon as
possible, not to lose such great quality work. One may say, it was
a competition and we have a winner. True, but, in reality, it is
quite complicated to have a better proposal in 2026. Let's discuss
this.
<br>
<br>
To conclude, huge congratulations to both LOCs! Much appreciated!
Auckland, you did great and you have the floor now!
<br>
<br>
Warm regards,
<br>
<br>
Vasile & Msilikale
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<br>
Subject: FOSS4G 2025 stage 2 vote results
<br>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 11:50:56 +0300
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Vasile, dear Msilikale,
<br>
<br>
FOSS4G 2025 will be in Auckland, New Zealand!
<br>
<br>
The voting was very tight, the Hiroshima LOC lost to just one
vote. We have received 11 votes in total, 6 for Auckland and 5 for
Hiroshima.
<br>
<br>
Many votes were accompanied by messages of encouragement for
either team to propose for FOSS4G 2026, as both bids were very
good!
<br>
<br>
<br>
Warm regards,
<br>
Codrina and Till
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>