[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2017 host city selection result

Eli Adam eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
Thu Nov 19 17:08:12 PST 2015

Sanghee, thanks for stepping in and completing this process.

Also thanks to MPG for his earlier effort.  I like his method of
ensuring that the conference committee makes a clear recommendation
and there are no ties [0]

Also thanks to Steven, Cameron, and anyone else who helped review the
timeline, RFP, facilitate discussion, participate in discussion, or
other aspects of this.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com> wrote:
> Jeff:
> YES, understood about the need for Board approval. Apologies for the twitter
> exuberance; as you know it was a long and strenuous process and we were
> relieved and joyful to get the Selection Committee's endorsement. As
> appropriate, I am happy to clarify by twitter that we've received the
> "selection committee recommendation" and await "board approval."

Congrats Michael and the Boston LOC!  The committee recommendation is
an accomplishment.

> Thanks again, and apologies for the premature announcement.
> MT
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Jeff McKenna
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>> An early congratulations to Michael and the entire BLOC.  Of course also
>> thank you to the entire Ottawa and Philadelphia teams for their hard work
>> throughout this long process.

Thanks to Ottawa and Philadelphia for great bids.  I'm glad that we
have to choose between multiple great options rather than reluctantly
selecting a dubious option.

>> Michael please note that this is actually a "recommendation" to the OSGeo
>> Board, who will now have to approve this at the board level.  I will likely
>> allow board members to discuss this internally through a voice call in the
>> next few days as well.  Please hold off on any public announcements
>> (although unfortunately I see many twitter messages already).

I've tried several times to suggest that our current system is broken
[1] or maybe not broken but could be improved.  In my opinion, our
process is such that the Conference Committee has painted the Board
into a corner with no choice but to approve Boston.  That is fine
since Boston is a great proposal.  In the event that in the future the
Board does have reason to reject a bid, doing so *before* the
Conference Committee makes a recommendation seems to make way more
sense than *after*.

Does anyone else think that our current system is structured for
maximum difficulty and negative consequences should the Board have to
reject a bid?  If so, any other ideas of ways to improve it?

Best regards, Eli

>> Sanghee thank you for stepping into manage the final vote, as I know very
>> well it is a very important position, with more details to consider than
>> most realize.  You handled it well.  And let's not forget the thankless work
>> that Eli did to get all this rolling, it is an absolute thankless position
>> that many criticize but few volunteer to do, and I appreciate all of Eli's
>> work through this process.
>> Talk soon,
>> -jeff

[0] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2015-June/003078.html
[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2014-February/002457.html

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list