[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2017 host city selection result

Fri Nov 20 02:36:08 PST 2015

Eli,
I don't think the board has to put any veto on any proposal *before*.
This is the job of the Conference Committee to identify possible blocks and
propose probably instead of a winner,

As a board member I didn't feel "in a corner with non choice":
I've always thought that I (and the board after discussion) can give a -1
to the proposed selection and ask the Conf Com to propose another one.
Maybe having right away a rank of the proposals with recommendations could
speed up so that the board could decide to select the first or for any
reason the next one.

Maxi

2015-11-20 2:08 GMT+01:00 Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>:

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

-- 
*Massimiliano Cannata*

Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica

Responsabile settore Geomatica

Istituto scienze della Terra

Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design

Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana

Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio

Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14

Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09

massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch

*www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20151120/3a13c5c8/attachment-0001.html>