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

[Eli Adam]

Trying to recombine these emails and respond to several at once in line.

Going back to my original discussion: most years this will be "The
Board has no financial preference since all these bids appear
financially viable" (which now I'll additionally qualify with, "...or
the levels of risk or potential loss are not of concern from the
current financial position.")


On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Steven Feldman <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 as the conference committee certainly should (and I think we do)
include rigorous scrutiny of the financials and risk.  I at least put
a lot of effort into this.

What I am trying to offload to the Board is "the amount that OSGeo can
responsibly risk to lose given other current funds, obligations, and
risks."  That has nothing to do with the conference committee and
everything to do with the Board of Directors of the foundation.

So I carefully evaluate the finances of the proposals.  What I don't
evaluate is where does OSGeo currently stand financially.  From a
conference perspective, I might like a less profitable more risky
proposal that I think does more to further the OSGeo mission and
spread FOSS4G.  Whether it is an appropriate time and position to
pursue that is more up to the Board than conference committee.

>
> 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.

Agree.  I think we are already doing this.  Also, thanks for everyone
who contributes there expertise and effort here.

> ______
> Steven
>


On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Michael Smith
<michael.smith.erdc at gmail.com> wrote:
> As someone on the board, I would say that, at least for me, the financial
> risk or success is not my primary concern. It is a concern, but not the
> primary. I'd be fine voting for a great bid that was more risky. And I'd
> also look explicitly for guidance from the conference committee. If a bid
> was highly endorsed by the conference committee, that would get my vote.

I think that the conference committee recommendation should be highly
valued since there is a lot of experience and knowledge there.  I
think that all OSGeo committees should operate mostly independently
within their designated realm.

The Conference Committee's designated realm does not include OSGeo
Foundation finances.  We don't pay attention to current balances or
existing or  planned outstanding risks and obligations.  The Board
realm does include OSGeo Foundation finances.

>
>
> ----
> Michael Smith
> OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
> treasurer at osgeo.org
>
>


On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)
<bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:
> All,
>
> I don’t know what a committee recommendation actually looks like when it’s sent to the board, but why not set up the recommendation with criteria from all the bids, with the details for each bid, included in a ranked system to the board.  Then they either go with the recommendation, or veto it, and go with another (more?) risky option, etc.  They retain control, the committee still gets to make it’s recommendation, etc.

This is essentially how it currently works.  My discussion was that it
seems untenable for the Board to actually veto the conference
committee and letting them express financial preference first may be a
more effective and smoother method.

>
> bobb


On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Helena Mitasova <hmitaso at ncsu.edu> wrote:
> Your proposal makes sense to me, +1 for the board to express their financial
> preference before the committee votes,

Thanks!  (I like the idea too.)

Once again, most years, this is going to be: "The Board has no
financial preference since all these bids appear financially viable or
the levels of risk or potential loss are not of concern from the
current financial position."

Eli

>
> Helena
>
> On 15 Jul 2015, at 00:09, Eli Adam <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
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>