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

Jachym Cepicky jachym.cepicky at gmail.com
Wed Sep 6 01:30:21 PDT 2017 

Ok,

after reading all what was said, I give my +1 to not publishing votes and
would like to see ongoing discussion about the other topic raised by Peter.

If I understand it correctly: Having 50% quota for the next round and
having each committee member as many votes, as there are candidates (so you
could put one vote to each proposal) would do the job?

J

st 6. 9. 2017 v 8:28 odesílatel Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> napsal:

> 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 Withdrawn?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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170906/fb37b81b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list