[OSGeo-Conf] 2012 Final Step: Voting

[Dave McIlhagga]

Hi Jeff,

I'd be concerned about putting Peter on the spot to make that kind of decision, there would clearly be nothing anonymous about it - so I'm not sure that's a realistic option.

As for pulling yourself out of the mix -- I'm not sure why that would make sense either, except to get an uneven number.

Considering this is a major decision here, my own comfort is to defer to the board on this -- they're the elected representatives of the charter membership who are ultimately responsible for the event, financial support, etc..

How do others feel?

Dave





On 2011-09-02, at 4:00 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:

> Hi Dave,
> 
> There was never a tie-breaking process outlined.  Here are 2 options:
> 
> 1) remove myself as Chair from this next round vote and future votes
> 
> 2) add Peter Batty into the committee and next round vote (he was going to be nominated/added after foss4g).  I will be talking to him shortly about this (but he has a lot on his plate).
> 
> I'd like to keep this vote within this OSGeo Conference Committee.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 11-09-02 4:55 PM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
>> Jeff - I'm not clear on how this will break the tie.
>> 
>> Did we ever come up with a tie-breaking process? If not -- I wonder if it should be referred to the Board for a vote since that would be the next step in the approval process?
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2011-09-02, at 3:36 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>> 
>>> Thank you to all committee members, all the votes are now received. Unfortunately, the result is an exact tie: 7 votes for Beijing and 7 votes for Prague.
>>> 
>>> There is no choice now but to open the discussion/question period again (in fact from reading the submitted votes, the few public votes and vote explanations played a large part in several decisions).  So now the schedule is:
>>> 
>>>  Additional Question period: now to Tuesday 6th
>>>  Final Voting:               7th-9th
>>> 
>>> Finally, I ask that your vote remain private (there was a long discussion on this years ago here and the overwhelming decision was to keep these private), but do share your questions and thoughts on this mailing list for everyone.
>>> 
>>> I am sorry to not be able to announce this today, I was really hoping we could.  Downside of this: even less time for the winning team to put together a presentation for the final Denver plenary.
>>> 
>>> -jeff
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 11-08-29 5:02 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you to both teams for answering the OSGeo Conference Committee's
>>>>>> questions regarding the proposals.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would ask that all OSGeo Conference Committee members email me their
>>>>>> selection privately for 2012: "Beijing" or "Prague" - please email me
>>>>>> before the end of your Thursday (Sept 1st) day. If there is a majority
>>>>>> in the voting results, we'll announce the winner on Friday. Hopefully
>>>>>> this still gives the winner some time to prepare a short 'invitation'
>>>>>> presentation for the 10 minute slot in the closing plenary in Denver on
>>>>>> September 16th (see Day 5: 3:30pm-3:40pm
>>>>>> http://2011.foss4g.org/program/session-schedule).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Background info:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - proposals: http://www.osgeo.org/conference/rfp
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - OSGeo Committee Members:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thierry Badard
>>>>>> Arnulf Christl
>>>>>> Gavin Fleming
>>>>>> Steve Lime
>>>>>> Dave McIlhagga
>>>>>> Helena Mitasova
>>>>>> Markus Neteler
>>>>>> Claude Philipona
>>>>>> Venkatesh Raghavan
>>>>>> Paul Ramsey
>>>>>> Cameron Shorter
>>>>>> Frank Warmerdam
>>>>>> Lorenzo Becchi
>>>>>> Jeff McKenna
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (I've already discussed with Peter Batty about his involvement in this
>>>>>> committee after Denver)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks everyone, this is exciting!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -jeff
>>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev