[Board] Fwd: FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

[Michael Gerlek]

Not that it helps the real question, but I'd be -0 on the "give PDX the
next NA event": there's no assurance that, next time around, the same
group of committed local organizers would be there.

Q: Is there any reason to believe a second vote would be different?

Q: I understand two members abstained because they are on the DC
committee. What is your own "perceived" conflict?

-mpg







-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>
Date: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 10:12 AM
To: OSGeo-Board <board at lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: [Board] Fwd: FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

>Hi Board,
>
>So, we have a tie. Last time this happened (2012), we re-voted and saw
>if anyone changed their minds. It seemed an odd process, though it did
>cause a result to emerge (the wrong one, as it turned out, but that
>wasn't an artifact of the process per se).
>
>The Board does have final say in conference site selection, the
>conference ctte just forwards a recommendation to the board, which has
>traditionally been accepted after the LOC provides an acceptable
>budget. The most straightforward action would be to forward the result
>to the Board to decide, since the ctte doesn't have a clear preference
>either way.
>
>Since this has happened twice now, adding a tie-breaker process to our
>document is going to have to be part of next year's RFP prep. But for
>this time out, it falls to you all.
>
>Recommendations on next steps?
>
>P.
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>
>Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:34 AM
>Subject: FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote
>To: conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>
>
>All,
>
>You will, like me, be displeased to hear that voting results are
>
>3 - Abstain
>5 - DC
>5 - Portland
>
>Some random notes:
>
>* Mark and Arnulf also voted (hi guys!) even though they aren't on the
>committee [1], so their votes aren't counted (and they cancelled each
>other out in any event).
>
>* The three abstentions are all due to members participating in the DC
>event or (me) declaring a perceived conflict of interest wrt DC.
>
>* With the exception of Peter, none of the voters is actually in North
>America! (Well, actually Gavin *is* in NA right now, but on a trip.
>And Peter is actually in the UK right now. And he's British. We live
>in an odd world.)
>
>* A few of the voters indicated that while the proposals were both
>very good they preferred the relative international ease of access of
>DC. (see above)
>
>* One voter, while voting for DC, suggested that Portland be given the
>next NA event.
>
>I'm going to let anarchy reign for one day, and then tell you all
>what's next after some discussion with the board, who are the final
>arbiters in these matters in any event.
>
>P.
>
>
>[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee
>_______________________________________________
>Board mailing list
>Board at lists.osgeo.org
>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board