[OSGeo-Conf] 2013 Letter of Intent Results

Dave McIlhagga dmcilhagga at dmsolutions.ca
Tue Apr 17 08:48:45 EDT 2012

I'm with Paul on this -- we've established a process let's stick with it. If we feel it needs changing, then let's have that discussion before the next round.

Given the difficulty I had choosing among the LOIs this year -- I feel I'm very open to changing my vote, and I believe I have changed in the past, so I do feel the two stage process is effective. My only possible suggestion for next time around is to allow committee members to select multiple LOIs that they feel they could vote for with full proposal in hand. Perhaps the bar could be raised (in terms of votes required) to still weed out the bids committee members feel aren't up to snuff, but still keep worthy applicants alive.

For now - let's stick with what we've got.


On 2012-04-17, at 12:02 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Cameron Shorter
> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/04/2012 4:20 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>>> In the interests of (partial) transparency, the results are:
>>> - Nottingham 4
>>> - Helsinki 2
>>> - Prague 1
>>> Nottingham and Helsinki are therefore invited to submit full proposals
>>> by the May 31, 2012 deadline. If you would prefer to withdraw and do
>>> not plan to submit a full proposal, please let me know as soon as
>>> possible.
>> Before we ask two cities to pull together two comprehensive, and time
>> consuming proposals, which will consume a decent amount of OSGeo's
>> collective volunteer energy, I'd like to question what we would gain from
>> the 2 proposals, beyond what we have already?
>> * Who amongst the volunteers on our committee will have the time to read the
>> 50 to 100 odd pages put forward by both cities?
> Better be all of us.
>> * How many of us are likely to change our vote based upon the extra
>> information provided?
> Count me as one. Preparing a good bid is an excellent exercise in
> thinking about what you want and how you'll realize it. If you can't
> do it, you probably can't put on a good conference. The RFP process
> notes this, in that it says that even if only one bidder passes the
> LOI stage, they have to prepare a full bid.
>> Should we continue with asking two cities to put forward proposals, then we
>> should let cities know which way other committee members are likely to vote
>> in the next round. Ie. Ask members who haven't voted so far, but who intend
>> to vote on the next round, to indicate their preference to cities. (Paul
>> would you mind collecting extra votes and then publishing results?)
> As much as I enjoy circumventing procedure, we have published an RFP
> with a set process, precisely to provide the bidders some certainty
> that we're not just going to arbitrarily muck around. I don't really
> want to open up the "what would have voted if..." can of worms. The
> vote is what it is. Folks are free to make their decisions in the
> light of the information available.
> P.
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> Geospatial Solutions Manager
>> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
>> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>> Think Globally, Fix Locally
>> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>> http://www.lisasoft.com
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list