[Board] Fwd: FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

[Michael Gerlek]

I'd personally love to have a PDX event :-)

But I'd like to see the committee take a couple days to each review the
two proposals again and then conduct a second round of voting. Paul, as
Chair, should then cast a tie-breaking vote if needed. While he does have
a perceived conflict, I have no qualms about his integrity here.

-mpg







-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>
Date: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 10:25 AM
To: Michael Gerlek <mpg at flaxen.com>
Cc: OSGeo-Board <board at lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: Re: [Board] Fwd: FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

>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
>>
>>