[OSGeo-Conf] Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"

[Peter Batty]

I'm glad Darrell has raised this as I have felt a bit uncomfortable with
the way that the first round of voting works. The general aim with
introducing the two stage selection process was to avoid a team having to
put in extensive work on a detailed proposal if they didn't have a
realistic chance of being accepted. However, I think we also want to ensure
reasonable competition to help maintain the high standards that we have for
FOSS4G events, so unless there was some unusual situation I would generally
hope to have at least two detailed proposals to evaluate.

The current single vote in the first round I find quite limiting. If I
think that two out of three initial proposals are strong and I would like
to see a more detailed version of both to evaluate, but that a third one is
weak and not a realistic option, I have no way to express that with one
vote. On a couple of occasions I have found myself voting tactically in the
first round, for what is my second choice based on initial information, as
I would like to try to make sure that we see detailed proposals from both
of my top 2 preferences - which is an approach that is not satisfactory and
may or may not work!

So I like Darrell's suggestion that for the first round, each committee
member should vote yes or no on each initial proposal to indicate if they
would like to see a more detailed proposal from that team. I think there
would be various ways we could make the cut after that vote. It could be
all teams greater than 50% as Darrell suggested. We could also specify a
maximum number, say at most 3 teams based on who got the most votes. Or we
could just go for the top 2 or 3 or whatever based on total votes without a
specific threshold.

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <darrell at garnix.org>
wrote:

> An alternative voting option is everyone gives an up or down vote on each
> proposal. Every proposal getting >50% (or whatever threshold) up votes
> proceeds to the next round.
>
> d.
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 2017, at 08:24, Venkatesh Raghavan <venka.osgeo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/5/2017 12:01 AM, Till Adams wrote:
> >> I  think publishing the vote results and the min. number of votes to
> >> pass the first threshold are two pair of shoes.
> >
> > I agree. On a lighter vein, it should be one pair of shoes.
> >
> >>
> >> I like the idea of a min. of 3 votes, but I prefer not to publish the
> >> results.
> >>
> >> Should we vote on the min. number of votes as well?
> >
> > I do not feel that vote on min. number of votes is necessary.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Venka
> >
> >>
> >> Till
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 04.09.2017 um 16:39 schrieb stevenfeldman:
> >>> Sanghee said "Me too. +1 for not disclosing the vote numbers at any
> stage. "
> >>>
> >>> My suggestion to publish LoI votes was based on the very low threshold
> for
> >>> inclusion in the next stage. If an LoI only needs 2 votes to go on to
> the
> >>> next stage we may be putting a team to a lot of work in preparing a
> full
> >>> proposal when they have little chance of being successful, hence my
> >>> suggestion.
> >>>
> >>> We could also address this by requiring an LoI to receive at least 20%
> of
> >>> the votes cast by the committee at the first stage.
> >>>
> >>> Re the final vote on proposals, I think it is helpful to those who
> have not
> >>> succeeded to understand how the voting worked.
> >>>
> >>> In general we as a community prefer transparency, I am surprised that
> on
> >>> this important topic some would prefer the results of the conference
> >>> committee votes to remain a secret. I vote against this suggestion
> >>>
> >>> Steven
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-
> Committee-f3721662.html
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Conference_dev mailing list
> >> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20170904/38e66e12/attachment.html>