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

[Eli Adam]

I vote -0 on the proposal, "I would propose *not* to publish the
number of votes on LoI's."

I generally favor transparency.  Not publishing in that past has
seemed to work as well.

I suspect with a new voting system [1], we are going to have all LoI's
receive 85-100%.  Many voting members in the past seemed to have
trouble deciding between multiple good LoI.  The full bids we receive
are of very high quality as well.

Best regards, Eli

[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2017-September/004464.html

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 Withdrawn?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