[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

[thomas bonfort]

I'm still available to run the election with the same rules as the first
round, with the difference that I will privately email results to the
voting members instead of the public list. Just let me know when to start.

Regards,
Thomas


On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:

> I don't need discussion time.
>
> I prefer a vote with two options and would like “No to Dar es Salaam”
> included as an option (or just change the question to "Should the
> Conference Committee award FOSS4G 2018 to Dar es Salaam?" Yes/No).  I
> guess I'm a stickler for formality which brings some bureaucracy.
>
> For whoever is going to run this vote, we might want to have a quick
> list discussion to see that we're all on the same page for how it will
> run.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:26 AM,  <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
> > +1 from me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 2016-12-05 14:14, schrieb Peter Batty:
> >>
> >> I think we can move to the voting stage and your suggestions sound
> >> good Steven.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>  Peter.
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com [3]>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Conference Committee Members
> >>>
> >>> The question period is now closed. I think the the Dar es Salaam
> >>> team have answered the questions, it is for you to decide whether
> >>> those answers are satisfactory.
> >>>
> >>> The selection process now allows for a period of discussion amongst
> >>> the CC members (possibly an IRC) however given the small number of
> >>> questions and a sole bidder I am not sure what would be gained from
> >>> a further discussion. Can you respond within the next 48 hours if
> >>> you wish to schedule a discussion, otherwise I will move on to the
> >>> voting stage.
> >>>
> >>> Re voting. I think that we should follow the process and hold a vote
> >>> even though there is only one proposal for consideration. My
> >>> suggestion is that we include a second option in the vote - “No to
> >>> Dar es Salaam”. I am not in any way say suggesting that there is
> >>> anything wrong with the Dar proposal or that I would vote against it
> >>> but I am suggesting that in a secret ballot anyone who is opposed to
> >>> the Dar proposal should have a way of registering that vote. In the
> >>> event that the no vote exceeded the yes vote we would then recommend
> >>> to the board that we recommence the selection process.
> >>>
> >>> If the CC view is that my suggestion is an unnecessary bit of
> >>> bureaucracy then I will proceed in whatever way you suggest. Either
> >>> way can you confirm your preference at the same time as indicating
> >>> whether you want an IRC before voting.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers and seasons greetings to you and yours
> >>>
> >>> ______
> >>> Steven
> >>
> >>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org [1]
> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [2]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Links:
> >> ------
> >> [1] mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> >> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >> [3] mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> 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/20161205/791baace/attachment.html>