[OSGeo-Conf] Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "alternative voting option for stage 1"

[Till Adams]

Dear list,

last friday the vote on "alternative voting option for stage 1" ended.

As far as I can see, we got 6 votes (hope I did not accidentally delete
related emails):

We have 5 x "+1" votes and 1 "-0" vote

With his "-0" Cameron proposes to use preferential voting (I attached
his words below)

My suggestion is the following:

Regarding a "-0"-vote not as "-1" which is a blocker I'd like to propose
for now, that we test the thumps up/thumps down voting for the (already
started) 2019 process. This also in order not to keep potential bidders
in suspense.

For the call for vote on the LoI I can remember CC-members, not to
careless put their thumbs up and also should consider to decline their
thump, if they think, that the LoI has too many gaps.

For the 2020-process we can have a new round of discussions on that
topic, then we'll also have some experience with the now newly used
methof of "thumbs up/thumbs down"-vote.


If now nobody cries and replies with a "-1", the call for change of
voting on LoI is accepted and hereby changed for 2019 to a thumbs
up/thumbs down vote.


Till


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Camerons thoughts:

"We then miss the point of stage 1 voting, which is to reduce
duplicating the large effort required to create a full proposal. The aim
is to help cities get early feedback on whether they are likely to win,
and then decide whether it is worth the effort.

I think a better means for achieving our voting goals is to use
Preferential (Ranked) voting [1], as used to vote in governments in many
democratic countries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

"


Am 08.09.2017 um 23:35 schrieb Cameron Shorter:
> -0 For proposed thumbs up/down voting.
>
> -0 For current 1 vote per voting member.
>
> +1 For preferential voting.
>
> Cameron
>
> The thumbs up/down voting will help valuable proposals reach round 2,
> which is good. But it is likely to remove the need for this first step
> all together. Every city should be capable of putting together a
> compelling 2 page proposal. Most of us voters are likely to provide
> thumbs up for all proposals.
>
> We then miss the point of stage 1 voting, which is to reduce
> duplicating the large effort required to create a full proposal. The
> aim is to help cities get early feedback on whether they are likely to
> win, and then decide whether it is worth the effort.
>
> I think a better means for achieving our voting goals is to use
> Preferential (Ranked) voting [1], as used to vote in governments in
> many democratic countries.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting
>
>
>
> On 6/9/17 1:42 am, Eli Adam wrote:
>> +1 Eli
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <darrell at garnix.org>
>> wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 07:27, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Steven Feldman
>>> <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Steven
>>>> 07958 924 101
>>>>
>>>>> On 5 Sep 2017, at 07:36, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to vote on the alternative voting option, as recently
>>>>> proposed
>>>>> by Darrell and seconded by Peter:
>>>>>
>>>>> Every CC member gives an up or down vote on each proposal. Every
>>>>> proposal getting >50% up votes proceeds to the next round.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please vote until 11th of september.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 from me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Till
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>