[Board] Fwd: FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

[Bart van den Eijnden]

Maybe it's also an option to consider the results of the first round in the case of a tie-break.

Personally I'd make sure we never start a vote with an even amount of people. When we added people this year out of the blew this should ideally have been taken into account.

Best regards,
Bart

-- 
Bart van den Eijnden
OSGIS - http://osgis.nl

On Jul 16, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:

> 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
>> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20130716/184d2db4/attachment.htm>