[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G selection process (interface with Board)

[Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)]

All,

My initial thoughts here are that the process should cross at least two levels or organizational scrutiny.  Yes the committee would in my mind have the most influence in deciding, but the Board would still have the option of veto power if needed.  any maybe there is a back and forth in the process to some degree, but keeping the process to closed up (single group) I think has the potential for leaving some bids out in the cold for one reason or another.  By having a multi-level review process you get away from this type of concern rather easily.

The lobby folks also have two different points of potential effect for lobby position etc.  I’m just trying to describe a flexible, but still finite process.

bobb



On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com<mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>> wrote:

Why can’t the conference committee include rigorous scrutiny of the financials and risk within their assessment of proposals rather than offloading to the board?

We are meant to be the group with the expertise in running past conferences, we should do the financial assessment. Perhaps we should do this before we even start to read the rest of the bid to ‘weed out’ any financially unsound proposals.
______
Steven


On 15 Jul 2015, at 00:09, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us<mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>> wrote:

Hi all,

I tried addressing this previously but it didn't go anywhere [0].

The conference committee recommends a LOC bid based on many criteria
to the OSGeo Board. Financial risk or success is not the primary
focus.

The OSGeo Board has to approve (or not) our recommendation, but their
primary focus is financial risk and success.

Right now the FOSS4G selection process could put the OSGeo Board in an
untenable position. Imagine this scenario: Bid A is an okay bid all
around and looks great financially.  Bid B is a great bid all around
except looks risky financially.  The conference committee recommends
bid B to the Board.  Now the Board is put in a very bad position where
they have to either start overturning the conference committee (and
delaying the process) or accept our recommendation which was made on
different criteria.

Now, let's look at another potential method that keeps the Board out
of that position.  Just like the previous scenario, Bid A is an okay
bid all around and looks great financially.  Bid B is a great bid all
around except looks risky financially.  Before the conference
committee makes a recommendation, the Board votes a "financial
preference" or "financial exclusion" like, "The Board has a financial
preference for Bid A" or more forcefully, "The Board financially
excludes Bid B" (most years this will be "The Board has no financial
preference since all these bids appear financially viable").  Then the
conference committee continues with making a recommendation.

Right now the way our process works seems rigged to prevent the Board
from really exercising their financial oversight.

Do you like this proposed process?  Should we use it this year?


Cheers, Eli


[0] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2014-February/002457.html
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20150715/f1be6dc9/attachment.html>