[Board] FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

[Jeff McKenna]

I stand by my initial email (listing exact steps, documents, dates,
rules).  Mark has accepted my views (thank you Mark for being
professional as always), and I believe we can begin the vote as per
those instructions.

I've added these instructions to a wiki page:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2014_Bid_Process_Board_Voting

As per the perspective of "opposed to the President getting to decide
individually"; this is not at all what I want to happen.  I passed on
the torch for the Conference Committee and FOSS4G (my true love) so that
new blood can guide the committee and help FOSS4G grow.  However, here
we are, the vote came back to the Board, and, an extra half vote does
make sense (meaning: I never planned this nor did I want this to
happen). Imagine how I feel, having to live with turning down a
wonderful team.  But, life ain't easy, we all have roles to fill, and, I
am ready to represent the OSGeo community as best as I can.

-jeff






On 2013-07-23 12:32 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> IMHO we do not need a special procedure for the board to decide this. 
> It can be done via a normal motion.
> 
> With regard to expecting someone not to vote due to a conflict of
> interest, I think it is best we refer to our conflict of interest policy:
> 
>   http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conflict_Of_Interest_Policy
> 
> The document is focused on *financial* conflicts of interest.  It is not
> clear that someone working on the LOC is gaining any financial benefit
> from the selection of their venue.  Instead they are getting themselves
> into a pile of unpaid work.  In the case of uncertainty the procedure
> listed is a vote by the other board members on a motion restricting
> someones participation in a board motion due to conflict of interest as
> opposed to the President getting to decide individually. 
> 
> Personally, I'm happy with either venue and I'd like to just reach some
> conclusion with a minimum of bad feelings.
> 
> Best regards,
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Michael P. Gerlek <mpg at flaxen.com
> <mailto:mpg at flaxen.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Do we as the board need to make a motion saying we will resolve this
>     via voting, or can we just proceed?
> 
>     * Let us please keep the NA event location and issue separate from
>     this vote.
> 
>     * I think 1-2 days to review the proposals, then a short by-email
>     voting window.
> 
>     * Normally I'd say we should have a discussion period, with a chance
>     to debate the pros and cons of each city, but I'm not sure that is
>     appropriate - I know I'd really like a chance to lobby for my city
>     choice, but I'm a little uncomfortable with that although I'm not
>     really sure why. Maybe because I see this as a tie-breaking
>     exercise, not a chance to reopen the whole selection process?
> 
>     * Given that, then, votes should go to Paul as a CRO, instead of the
>     mailing list, to avoid early board voters influencing later voters.
>     (The votes should not be secret, though- Paul should announce who
>     voted for what after vote period closes.)
> 
>     * In the event of a board tie vote, I suggest Jeff, as president,
>     decides the winner.
> 
>     .mpg
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Board mailing list
>     Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 
> 
>