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

[Eli Adam]

What is that status of this motion, "I would propose *not* to publish
the number of votes on LoI's as we did (presumably accidentally) for
the 2018 RfP"?  Failed? Passed? Withdrawn?

In my mind we are really in the discussion phase and should not yet be
voting.  Although, honestly, this email list gets the most discussion
participation once a vote is called, so maybe calling votes is the
only way to get wide participation in discussion.


Best regards, Eli

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
> 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>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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