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

Wed Dec 28 08:29:51 PST 2016

I think votes should be shared publicly. Openness in our decision making process should be a guiding principle.

Perhaps the CC should review this as part of the preparation for the RfP each year. 
______
Steven

> On 27 Dec 2016, at 02:29, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto:raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>
>>>>> Cc: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>, Cameron Shorter
>>>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>, Maria Antonia Brovelli
>>>>> <maria.brovelli at polimi.it> <mailto: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> <mailto: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 <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> <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20161228/b3a5a62b/attachment.html>