[Board] Fwd: FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for this update.

I appreciate all of the effort (and grey hairs) that the entire
Conference Committee puts into this decision.

I feel a re-vote after something like 5 business days is a good plan.
For the 2012 vote we saw a big difference in the second round of voting.

(Note that I would never say one result was a 'bad' one.  We all learn
from each FOSS4G event.)

I also respect Paul for not voting.  Working for a company that is a
strong part of a bid is a conflict of interest.  Earlier on in the
process I had to dig up the emails to see if this was the case, and I
was happy to see that he declined voting. (yes I watch quietly from afar)

In the event of another tie, since allowing the chair to vote would be a
conflict of interest, the decision should fall on the Board.

Yes the Conference Committee should update the 2015 RFP to add a note
about tie breakers, such as:

****
"In the event of a tie in voting, the Conference Committee Chair will be
given an extra half vote to decide the winner; in the event that the
Conference Committee Chair is unable to vote (i.e. conflict of interest
due to an involvement in one of the bids), then the final decision
should be given to the OSGeo Board, likely through a vote by all Board
members."
****

Those are my recommendations.

-jeff





On 2013-07-16 1:12 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________