[Board] FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

[Jeff McKenna]

We will likely require a motion from the Board to proceed.

I motion to follow a custom voting procedure[1] by the Board, in order
to decide the tie breaker for the hosting location of the FOSS4G 2014 event.

[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2014_Bid_Process_Board_Voting

-jeff


On 2013-07-23 3:22 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
> 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
>>