[Board] Fwd: FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

[Paul Ramsey]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Michael Gerlek <mpg at flaxen.com> wrote:

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

There never is, but one never knows either.

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

OpenGeo is heavily involved in the DC bid, though I personally have
had nothing to do with it.

P.


> -----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
>
>