[OSGeo-Conf] Fwd: Should cities bidding for FOSS4G be notified of vote count?

Tue Dec 27 01:19:07 PST 2016

YES
In my opinion, and in line with the board election process, results should
be public.

Maxi

2016-12-27 3:29 GMT+01:00 Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>:

> Conference committee,
>
> Should vote counts for cities bidding for FOSS4G be shared, either
> publicly or privately?
>
> This question is applicable for both stage 1 and stage 2 voting.
>
> Options suggested so far:
>
> 1. Results of vote are publicly announced, number of votes for each city
> is not shared.
>
> 2. Additionally, each city is privately notified of votes for each city.
>
> 3. Additionally, votes for each city is shared publicly.
>
> --
>
> This question was raised while refining FOSS4G committee discussions.
> (Discussions were initially private to reduce email fatigue). Discussion so
> far is shared below.
>
> I'll hold this thread open for two weeks for discussion, until 10 Jan,
> then raise a motion to be voted on.
>
>
>
> On 24/12/2016 5:48 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
> Venka,
> <snip>
>
> With regards to publishing the results of FOSS4G votes, I suggest that
> this should be described in the FOSS4G RFP document rather than here. (We
> should only describe in one place, and it should be easily found by cities
> looking to vote).
>
> I agree it is a topic worth discussing and suggest we should take the
> conversation to the public list. I assume that you'd all be ok with me
> sharing your responses on this thread publicly?
>
> A 3rd option is to privately share number of votes for each city with the
> city, but publicly only declare successful bids.
> <snip>
>
> Cheers, Cameron
>
> On 24/12/2016 4:26 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>
> Good point Eli
>
> Open or closed voting or even a change in process should be for the CC to decide on a year by year basis
>
> Regards
> Steven
>
>
> +44 (0) 7958 924101
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 23 Dec 2016, at 17:18, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
>
> Some people have argued that the bidding process is over-competitive
> and leads to a lot of work for an unsuccessful bid (only one bid will
> be successful) and that we would be better off with a different
> selection method that doesn't have multiple LOCs putting a lot of work
> into an unsuccessful bid.  I'm not sure that I see a clearly better
> way while LOCs are still almost solely responsible for the success of
> the conference.  Getting voted out in stage 1 could be better for
> community morale than getting voted out in stage 2.
>
> I'm see both sides to public and private votes.  I see both sides to
> our current bidding method or another which doesn't have multiple LOCs
> compete for one conference.  I'm not sure which is better and don't
> have a strong opinion on either right now.  Both of these are leading
> away from the current topic of the Conference Committee process.
>
> Do we want to resolve the public or private nature of stage 1 and
> stage 2 FOSS4G selection as part of the Conference Committee process?
> Could that be left open and determined each year or at a later time?
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Maria Antonia Brovelli<maria.brovelli at polimi.it> <maria.brovelli at polimi.it> wrote:
>
> In my opinion we have to evaluate if those numbers are useful for the
> proposers or can be demotivating. Just an example: if we have two proposals,
> one very good and the second which appears excellent, the vote can happen to
> be completely unbalanced toward the latter proposal and the former proposers
> can become demotivated and sad because of the low rank reached. A proposal
> is a common fruit of a local community, which proudly wants to be
> protagonist of our global activity. Is the count useful for the community?
> Are there other points of view that I'm not able to see?
> Best!
> Maria
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
> Data: 23/12/16 17:23 (GMT+01:00)
> A: Venkatesh Raghavan <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>
> Cc: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> <shfeldman at gmail.com>, Cameron Shorter<cameron.shorter at gmail.com> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>, Maria Antonia Brovelli<maria.brovelli at polimi.it> <maria.brovelli at polimi.it>
> Oggetto: Re: Revised conference committee processes
>
> In my memory (I didn't bother to check the archives), stage 1 was not
> revealed until recently.  However, stage 2 was often revealed because
> it was a tie.  Even in cases that it wasn't a tie I seem to recall
> stage 2 results sometimes being public.  I don't have a strong
> preference either way, although see Venka's point for stage 1.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan<raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> Steven,
>
>
> On 12/23/2016 9:14 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>
> Venka
>
> I do not understand why we would want to keep the number of votes cast in
> stage 1 and 2 secret? It doesn’t feel a very transparent way to determine
> one of the most important decisions that OSGeo makes each year.
>
> The number of votes received by bidding teams was never made public
> until the 2018 bid (and there was no issue about that). One of the main
> reason for not making the votes received by teams in stage-1 is
> to keep the competition alive or the second 2.
>
> You may recall that the chair of the Thai-team who withdrew from the stage
> 2 bid also suggested something to the similar effect.
>
> Transparency in the FOSS4G selection process is necessary and has always
> existed,
> but I do not think that declaring number of votes is necessary and was
> never
> done
> (except for the 2018 bid).
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
> [1]https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2016-October/004127.html
>
>  Can you explain?
> ______
> Steven
>
>
>
> On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Venkatesh Raghavan<raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> Hi Cameron and all,
>
> <snip>
>
> Regarding the FOSS4G selection, I would like to
> suggest that the number of votes received by
> each team should never be declared and only
> know to the CRO. It is adequate to declare the
> teams that are short-listed in Stage-1, without
> mentioning which team got how many votes.
> Also, the ultimate winner is stage-2 can be declared
> without revealing the number of votes received.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>*

-- 
-- 

Dr. Eng. Massimiliano Cannata
Responsabile Area Geomatica
Istituto Scienze della Terra
Scuola Universitaria Professionale della Svizzera Italiana
Via Trevano, c.p. 72
CH-6952 Canobbio-Lugano
Tel: +41 (0)58 666 62 14
Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20161227/8f88751f/attachment-0001.html>