[Board] Fwd: FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

[Bart van den Eijnden]

Right, this makes sense Arnulf.

My concern was merely that if there is one proposal with "broad support" (a.k.a. conflict of interest), and all those people step out of voting (both on the conf committee as on the board), the vote will be very skewed. This is exactly what Daniel has pointed out.

Best regards,
Bart

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

On Jul 22, 2013, at 2:23 PM, "Seven (aka Arnulf)" <seven at arnulf.us> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Bart,
> good idea. But from my experience as CRO for the board elections it is
> hard to get a hold of all the Charter Members in the first place, and
> even harder on short notice and the most hardest ever right now in the
> middle of summer break time. So this is not a viable solution if we
> want to get things done.
> 
> Plus - the board represents the Charter Members, it has been elected
> by them.
> 
> Plus, I vouch for all current directors to be as impartial as possible
> and to be able to divvy-out potential conflicts of interest.
> 
> Plus, lets get this decision taken soon to relieve the pressure on the
> two parties (and not make a fool of ourselves. We have a board in
> place that we trust, we have two excellent proposals - what on earth
> could possible go wrong here?).
> 
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Arnulf
> 
> On 22.07.2013 14:14, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>> Hey Jeff,
>> 
>> right, but AFAICT your recommendations were not taking into account
>> what Daniel has stated today - possible conflict of interest for
>> some of the board members.
>> 
>> Best regards, Bart
>> 
>> -- Bart van den Eijnden OSGIS - http://osgis.nl
>> 
>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Jeff McKenna
>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com 
>> <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I've stated recently on the Discuss list I'd like to have
>>> Charter Members vote for the FOSS4G location, with the Conference
>>> Committee responsible for managing the process.  But those
>>> thoughts are for future RFPs. In this case, as we are almost
>>> through the process for 2014, I outlined my recommendations in my
>>> previous email.
>>> 
>>> -jeff
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2013-07-22 8:59 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Sounds like a good way forward given the fact that both bids
>>>> seem to meet the evaluation criteria as stated above.
>>>> 
>>>> Let's see what others think, but I'd be supportive of this
>>>> idea...
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ Board mailing
>>> list Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org> 
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Board mailing list 
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org 
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>> 
> 
> 
> - -- 
> Exploring Space, Time and Mind
> http://arnulf.us
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAlHtJDwACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b0tVACfbE6qHDfgpPzaG51wsu68KNV8
> 43cAnjiNI+xw4uJ8iUcuaVr0DeF5FTnQ
> =S5t/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130722/eaa0fd21/attachment.htm>