[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2015 bidding selection process

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Tue Feb 4 02:05:28 PST 2014

Thanks Eli for highlighting the issue of a tie vote. I agree that the 
voting method is not too important, so long as it is agreed upon before 
hand, and has a system for resolving ties.

I propose we extend current text from:
//OSGeo conference committee members will individually order the 
proposals from best to worst based on their subjective judgement of the 
proposal. The final selection will be determined by aggregating the 
individual orderings./

to include:

*/In the case of a tie, the Conference Committee chair's vote will used 
to resolve the tie.

(I've updated the RFP text to include this sentence)

On 04/02/14 18:17, Eli Adam wrote:
> Hi Conf-dev (and to some extent Board),
> The follow views are my own, not necessarily shared by the PDX LOC or
> others.  I invite others, especially members of LOCs that were
> involved in bid selection ties (somewhat common: PDX, DC, Prague, and
> Beijing), to share their thoughts as well.
> Perhaps the board should make an expression of financial viability and
> risk preference (if any) *before* the conference committee votes since
> it is impossible (or at least very difficult) to do *after* the
> conference committee has made a recommendation.  This could take the
> form of something like, "The OSGeo Board finds all these bids to be
> financially viable and of acceptably low risk and will be happy to
> approve any of them recommended by the Conference Committee"
> When there are ties it means that there are great proposals.  When
> there are great proposals, lightheartedness, not overly serious
> deliberation, is needed.  A decision between great proposals is more
> inconsequential than important (either would be great events).  If the
> rare case of two very poor bids comes in, they should both be rejected
> and new bids sought.
> My opinion on conference committee selection is that kicking
> irreconcilable ties to the board is a form of escalation and what is
> needed is deescalation.   It is better for the conference committee
> chair and the loc chairs sort it out. A video call with a coin flip
> would work.  I think that the chair deciding is fine too and if we are
> in a case where the chair is abstaining, then the tie breaker must be
> allotted to some other conference committee member in advance.  In all
> cases, the conference committee should come to some conclusion even if
> it is by arbitrary methods.  Escalation to the Board unnecessarily
> raises the stakes which does not benefit anyone and does not improve
> the quality of the decision.
> Best Regards, Eli
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20140204/05a06be5/attachment.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list