[OSGeo-Conf] RFP tweaks

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Fri Jan 6 12:11:30 PST 2017

Before I put this to formal vote (on 10 Jan), are there any further 
comments on Conference Committee process?


I'm not planning to address Michael/Venka's comments in this text, as:
1. If it were to change, it should change in the RFP, not in this text
2. We have not yet reached rough consensus
(I'm not planning to take this on myself)

On 29/12/2016 11:21 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
> 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
On Dec 26, 2016 6:28 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <cameron.shorter at gmail.com 
<mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
Conference committee,

Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference 
committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and Venka. 
After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].

Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you 
think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing to 
be changed.

Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably all), 
and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion as a 
separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up to 2 
weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).

The changes include:

* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a requirement 
that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50% of the committee.

* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to 
try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all) committee 
members to vote.

* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.

Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the 
conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10 more 
people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16 members [2] 

Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the 
committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.


[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members 

Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20170107/3431738c/attachment.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list