[OSGeo-Conf] Call for Votes: Host Venue for 2007 conference

[percy]

Hi all,

Thanks for all of the positive comments about Portland's proposal! If we 
had know that the bar was going to be so high, we obviously would have 
put more detail into our budget and made some of our other ideas more 
explicit. It would be great for future proposers to have a previously 
*chosen* proposal as a reference and, as Jeff mentions, an actual 
criteria listing with points assigned to each category.

That said, I am sure that many of the Portland organizing committee 
members would be *delighted* to assist Victoria in any way we can. It is 
a fairly short distance, and as long as the registration fees can be 
held down, most of us will likely attend ;-)

I hope that Victoria reaches out to us, we are brimming with energy!

Sorry for the late response, I was at a scientific conference (AGU, a 
conference of 13,000+, where geoinformatics were discussed quite a lot 
and OSGEO might want to consider future "boothing"). There is another 
interesting OSGEO possible event next year called the "Electronic 
Geophysical Year" which highlights the interchange of scientific data 
about the earth, among other things...

Looking forward to future collaboration!
Cheers,
Percy

Jeff McKenna wrote:
>
>>
>> [ ] Portland, Oregon, United States
>> [x] Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
>>
>
> It was a close vote for me.  I ended up scoring the proposals by each 
> requirement, out of 5 for each requirement.  My scores show how close 
> it was for me (out of possible 45):
>
>   Victoria: 41
>   Portland: 37
>
> I think the flaw in our voting is that the bidders don't get much 
> feedback from us, except in various emails and IRC chats.  For future 
> hosting votes, I would propose that we create and implement a scoring 
> template for each committee member, with space for comments, that is 
> later sent to all bidders.  (the weights would be included in the RFP 
> as well).
>
> Also, it seems now that I wasn't the only one with hesitations about 
> having a public vote for this.  I think all future hosting votes 
> should be private (the scoring templates would be filled out 
> anonymously). We can discuss both of those ideas at a later time.
>
> Back to my own decision: I was impressed with the Victoria bid 
> submission (very professional, with a detailed budget for several 
> different scenarios).  I'm a little hesitant to change the workshop 
> structure, but am glad to see that they have budgeted for machine 
> rentals and are open for further discussions regarding this.
>
> I really like the enthusiasm of the Portland group.  That is what made 
> this decision difficult for me.  I look back at OSGIS in 2004 and at 
> our organizing committee, and wonder how our own proposal would have 
> looked like.
>
> In the end the Victoria bid gets my vote.
>
> Thanks to both groups for all of their time on this.  I hope that both 
> groups get their chance to host this conference someday.
>
> jeff
-- 
David Percy
Geospatial Data Manager
Geology Department
Portland State University
http://gisgeek.pdx.edu
503-725-3373