[Board] Fwd: FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

[Jeff McKenna]

Thank you Paul.  It is a very difficult decision this year, and I thank
you for managing this process, I've seen excellent discussions from the
Conf Comm members on this.

Board Vote
***********

Voting for where to host the global FOSS4G event is very important, and
I hope each Board member takes this responsibility seriously.  This
means of course reviewing each proposal and budget closely, and
reviewing the excellent Q/A already done by the Conf Comm
(http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html).

Thanks Cameron for getting the ball rolling with suggestions.

Proposal Documents
------------------

Paul: would you mind updating http://www.osgeo.org/conference/rfp so we
can all quickly access the docs?

I also see the proposals in svn at:
http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/proposals/2014/

Board members should also review the 2014 RFP
(http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2014/), specifically the
"Evaluation Criteria" section, on page 9.  (as the Conf Comm did, the
OSGeo Board must also vote according to the Evaluation Criteria as
specified in the RFP)

Abstension
----------

I don't believe any of the OSGeo Board members are involved in either of
the Portland or DC bids; but please identify yourself if so.

Vote Process
------------

We should keep the same voting process as the Conf Comm: we send our
city selection to Paul as CRO privately.

Vote Deadline
-------------

I agree with Cameron on giving a week for voting.  Let's actually say
votes should be sent to Paul by end of next Monday, the 29th.

Tie Breaker
-----------

We have 9 Board members, so we should be ok.  But in the case of a tie,
I agree that the President's vote should count as 1.5 votes.

Board Q/A
---------

Paul would you ask the bidding teams to follow communications on the
Board list this week?  (I really want to avoid cross-posting questions
on multiple mailing lists)  I see no need for any offline discussions,
let's do this openly on the Board list.

---

Thank you to all Board members for taking the time to review proposals,
criteria, and making your vote.  Your passion is a part of what makes
FOSS4G so important each year.

-jeff




On 2013-07-21 1:05 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Board,
> 
> After a period of discussion and a re-vote, the conference committee
> is still returning a tied result (3 abstain, 5 DC, 5 Portland).
> 
> So, it falls to you all to make a final determination!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM, 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