[OSGeo-Conf] Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoIvotes"
Till Adams
till.adams at fossgis.de
Mon Sep 4 23:33:24 PDT 2017
Peter,
thanks for that input - I also like the idea.
Personnally I als prefer the situation, that there is a competition.
I call up a vote for this new, stage 1 voting system ;-)
Till
Am 04.09.2017 um 20:25 schrieb 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Conference-Committee-f3721662.html>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Conference_dev mailing list
> >> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> <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/20170905/634534e3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list