[OSGeo-Conf] RFP tweaks

[Venkatesh Raghavan]

I agree with the point made by Michael regarding the
submission of RFP's to an intermediary and making
them public after the passing of global deadline.

Best

Venka


On 12/29/2016 1:24 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
> 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 ______ Steven
>
>
>> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Conference_dev
> mailing list Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>