[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2018 Decision Time

[Steven Feldman]

Thanks Thomas

Let’s wait until Wednesday in case anyone objects to my suggestion then I will confirm the voting procedure. 

Although I note the concerns expressed at the LoI stage voting being made public. I think it is important for the sake of transparency that we are open about the voting for or against the Dar proposal (open does not mean saying who voted, your anonymisation process worked well IMO)

Cheers and thanks for being our recording officer
______
Steven


> On 5 Dec 2016, at 15:40, thomas bonfort <thomas.bonfort at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org> [1]
> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev> [2]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Links:
> >> ------
> >> [1] mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> >> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
> >> [3] mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 <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 <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/20161205/4f215942/attachment-0001.html>