[OSGeo-Conf] RFP tweaks

Steven Feldman shfeldman at gmail.com
Wed Dec 28 08:24:17 PST 2016

Eli is correct. When we were revising the RfP process, I suggested proposals were sent to the CC chair rather than posted directly to the list, this was based on the concerns that Michael had previously expressed.

I am relieved that Eli persuaded me otherwise (the person steering the selection process has enough work to do without picking up this additional task). I tend to agree with Eli’s reasons for not implementing the suggested change but I would like to hear whether any other LOC’s over the last few years have any concerns in this regard

> On 27 Dec 2016, at 21:15, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Cameron Shorter
> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto: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 <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,
> https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018 <https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018>
>> 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/ <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 <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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20161228/65734024/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list