[Board] FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote

[Jeff McKenna]

Thanks Mike, I added a "Vote Results" section: "Individual votes will
not be made public afterwards, only the winner will be announced."

-jeff




On 2013-07-25 2:56 PM, Michael Gerlek wrote:
> +1
> 
> But, are the votes made public afterwards? I don't think I care either
> way, but we should spell it out.
> 
> -mpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>
> Date: Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:52 AM
> To: <board at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [Board] FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote
> 
>> 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
>>>>
>>