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

Till Adams till.adams at fossgis.de
Tue Sep 5 23:27:57 PDT 2017


Eli,

that is my experience, call for a vote, ad discussion goes on. I think
we are all more or less of the same opinion, that voting results should
*not* be published. I also think, that happened accidentally last time.
So no worries here.

Till


Am 05.09.2017 um 17:41 schrieb 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 Withdrawn?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



More information about the Conference_dev mailing list