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

Wed Sep 6 01:56:56 PDT 2017

ugh,
here my +1 for the new voting system

J

út 5. 9. 2017 v 8:33 odesílatel Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> napsal:

> 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 listConference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttps://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/20170906/3eb47028/attachment-0001.html>