[OSGeo-Conf] RFP tweaks

Eli Adam eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
Tue Dec 27 13:15:06 PST 2016

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go into
> the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document myself, but
> happy to see someone else take it on.
> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents
> (source in subversion)

I could help someone start on this when the time rolls around.  This
is the last rfp in svn,

> On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
> I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1 of
> "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation did not
> arise with the 2018 competition generating only one proposal). We would
> respectfully suggest that the final Proposals not be posted directly to the
> Conference Dev list by the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary,
> who would then post them publicly after the global deadline has passed. In
> the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first
> proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late
> submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before
> submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017, but the
> "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and
> is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this:
> "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to an
> intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline; and the
> intermediary will post them publicly the day following the deadline."

This could be a change worth trying.

Steven was inclined to make that revision and I resisted it some.
Part of bidding on FOSS4G is joining and participating in the email
list.  Sometimes it takes a little effort for that to happen.  Using
an intermediary would address some timing issues, however, it
introduces other issues.  One is that the intermediary is then
responsible for verifying the bid was received on time.  There is
always the potential for attachment, email, spam classification, and
other problems which then the intermediary is mixed up in.  It also
means that list traffic is replying to the intermediary instead of the
LOC representative.  The requirement to post to the list makes it
entirely apparent by checking the archives if your proposal has
posted, https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/, and the
burden for those requirements are entirely on the LOC.  It also forces
the LOC representative to be on the list.

I'm not sure that there is an advantage to reading another bid for the
same year before submitting.  To some extent, all bids are based on
some collection of bids from previous years and all share many
similarities.  Many keys aspects of a bid can't be changed in a day or
a few hours either.  The subsequent question period often draws
revisions in the bids to be more similar as well.  I suspect that
voting decisions are as much influenced by the question period as the
initial bid.  I'm not sure that the timing advantages outweigh the
intermediary disadvantages but am generally inclined to defer to more
recent FOSS4G events and the people doing the work.  I would support
trying this intermediary method if the person running the RFP process
is favorable to it.

Glad to see the refinement process at work each year.  Thanks for
working to improve the process.

Cheers, Eli

> Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
> MT
> --
> 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

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list