[Board] FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

[Mark Lucas]

Perhaps a little frustration did show through, sorry about that.

My main concern has always been the financial health of the organization.  That is the primary reason I came back on the board - hoping that we could focus more on sponsorship and generating more revenue enabling us to do more.  We have great volunteer resources and effort, certainly the selection committee has done an excellent job.  My "figuring it out as we go" comment was more directed at where to go after a tie, charter member vote, board vote, board vote excluding board members that had volunteered services one way or the other.  Clearly we have to select one to be the international conference.  Both have worked hard on their proposals and either one will be a good venue.

If I am asked or allowed to vote, I would vote for DC - but that is simply because I believe we could get more revenue and exposure there.  Portland would be a nicer place to visit and I'm sure we would be attracting more natural resources people and is a more laid back environment.  We all have opinions, biases, and agendas based on what we think can move us forward. On a professional level, I can target sponsorship dollars at DC, I'm not able to make that case in Portland given the nature of my business.  So that also influences my choice.

I read below that the president has made the decision he can't accept my vote ( I know that is not personal, and that it is well intentioned ).

I'll support whatever is decided.

Mark


On Jul 23, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> 
> I've been hoping you would respond to let us know your position,
> regarding you being on the DC local committee, for this vote.  Are you
> saying that that is not a conflict of interest?
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't believe someone who is named in the proposal on
> the local committee for a bid should be allowed to decide which bid is
> better; I, don't see how that would be possible.
> 
> As for making up the rules as we go: the Conference Committee has worked
> very hard at this, reviewing each proposal, and, the two bids are so
> good that the committee could not agree on which is better.  We will now
> vote as a Board to decide.
> 
> I am sorry if you are frustrated at this process.  We, are all
> volunteers, working very hard and trying to pass on our passion to the
> next FOSS4G.  Maybe, after this, you can join the Conference Committee
> and dive into helping develop the next 2015 process; this would be great
> to have your help at this, as it is not an easy task at all (I do know
> from experience).
> 
> In the mean time, I cannot accept your vote for this 2014 process, only
> because you are listed in the RFP document for DC for its local committee.
> 
> If this is still an issue, I suggest the Board meet for a Skype meeting
> ASAP to solve this issue.  Out of all this passion and feelings, must
> come something good, and I am happy to make time to work with you on this.
> 
> -jeff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013-07-22 11:01 PM, Mark Lucas wrote:
>> Sounds like we are making up the rules as we go along.  I think we
>> either have a board vote or not.  If someone wants to abstain because
>> they believe they have a conflict of interest that should be their
>> personal decision.
>> 
>> I'd like to find a way to select one as the international conference and
>> let the other organize as a regional.  
>> 
>> I'd really like to find a way to build up OSGeo revenues through some of
>> the regional conferences as well.  Perhaps as simple as when they need
>> OSGeo financial backing we work a division of profits.
>> 
>> First step is simply selecting the international venue.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com
>> <mailto:dmorissette at mapgears.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 13-07-22 8:33 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> BTW, I believe Mark Lucas is on the DC LOC so we'd lose him as well
>>> for the vote unless I'm mistaken.
>>> 
>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130723/f9172287/attachment.htm>