<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Maybe it's also an option to consider the results of the first round in the case of a tie-break.<div><br></div><div>Personally I'd make sure we never start a vote with an even amount of people. When we added people this year out of the blew this should ideally have been taken into account.</div><div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Bart</div><div><br><div apple-content-edited="true">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">-- <br>Bart van den Eijnden<br>OSGIS - <a href="http://osgis.nl">http://osgis.nl</a></span>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jul 16, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Jeff McKenna <<a href="mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com">jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi Paul,<br><br>Thanks for this update.<br><br>I appreciate all of the effort (and grey hairs) that the entire<br>Conference Committee puts into this decision.<br><br>I feel a re-vote after something like 5 business days is a good plan.<br>For the 2012 vote we saw a big difference in the second round of voting.<br><br>(Note that I would never say one result was a 'bad' one. We all learn<br>from each FOSS4G event.)<br><br>I also respect Paul for not voting. Working for a company that is a<br>strong part of a bid is a conflict of interest. Earlier on in the<br>process I had to dig up the emails to see if this was the case, and I<br>was happy to see that he declined voting. (yes I watch quietly from afar)<br><br>In the event of another tie, since allowing the chair to vote would be a<br>conflict of interest, the decision should fall on the Board.<br><br>Yes the Conference Committee should update the 2015 RFP to add a note<br>about tie breakers, such as:<br><br>****<br>"In the event of a tie in voting, the Conference Committee Chair will be<br>given an extra half vote to decide the winner; in the event that the<br>Conference Committee Chair is unable to vote (i.e. conflict of interest<br>due to an involvement in one of the bids), then the final decision<br>should be given to the OSGeo Board, likely through a vote by all Board<br>members."<br>****<br><br>Those are my recommendations.<br><br>-jeff<br><br><br><br><br><br>On 2013-07-16 1:12 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Hi Board,<br><br>So, we have a tie. Last time this happened (2012), we re-voted and saw<br>if anyone changed their minds. It seemed an odd process, though it did<br>cause a result to emerge (the wrong one, as it turned out, but that<br>wasn't an artifact of the process per se).<br><br>The Board does have final say in conference site selection, the<br>conference ctte just forwards a recommendation to the board, which has<br>traditionally been accepted after the LOC provides an acceptable<br>budget. The most straightforward action would be to forward the result<br>to the Board to decide, since the ctte doesn't have a clear preference<br>either way.<br><br>Since this has happened twice now, adding a tie-breaker process to our<br>document is going to have to be part of next year's RFP prep. But for<br>this time out, it falls to you all.<br><br>Recommendations on next steps?<br><br>P.<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Paul Ramsey <<a href="mailto:pramsey@cleverelephant.ca">pramsey@cleverelephant.ca</a>><br>Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:34 AM<br>Subject: FOSS4G 2014 RFP Vote<br>To: conference <<a href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br><br><br>All,<br><br>You will, like me, be displeased to hear that voting results are<br><br>3 - Abstain<br>5 - DC<br>5 - Portland<br><br>Some random notes:<br><br>* Mark and Arnulf also voted (hi guys!) even though they aren't on the<br>committee [1], so their votes aren't counted (and they cancelled each<br>other out in any event).<br><br>* The three abstentions are all due to members participating in the DC<br>event or (me) declaring a perceived conflict of interest wrt DC.<br><br>* With the exception of Peter, none of the voters is actually in North<br>America! (Well, actually Gavin *is* in NA right now, but on a trip.<br>And Peter is actually in the UK right now. And he's British. We live<br>in an odd world.)<br><br>* A few of the voters indicated that while the proposals were both<br>very good they preferred the relative international ease of access of<br>DC. (see above)<br><br>* One voter, while voting for DC, suggested that Portland be given the<br>next NA event.<br><br>I'm going to let anarchy reign for one day, and then tell you all<br>what's next after some discussion with the board, who are the final<br>arbiters in these matters in any event.<br><br>P.<br><br><br>[1] <a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee</a><br>_______________________________________________<br></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>Board mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>