[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020

[Paul Ramsey]

I don't think the numbers, whether 12-1 or 7-6 will be particularly
explanatory. If you want a post-mortem to apply to future bids I'd suggest
approaching committee members on a confidential basis for their feedback on
their personal decision process... I imagine a pattern would emerge (I hope
a pattern would emerge!) after a few conversations.

P.

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:33 AM Vasile Craciunescu <vasile at geo-spatial.org>
wrote:

> Well, traditionally, the results are not made public, only the winner is
> disclosed.
>
> Vasile
>
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> On 18 Dec 2018, at 17:25, Vicky Vergara <vicky at georepublic.de> wrote:
>
> Ah, how much more? 12-1 still worries me
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:20 AM Vasile Craciunescu <vasile at geo-spatial.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Vicky,
>>
>> The total number of votes is 13. Not all of them went to Calgary. They
>> just got more votes than Halifax.
>>
>> Congratulations to both teams for the impressing proposals.
>>
>> Best,
>> Vasile
>>
>> Sent from my mobile device
>>
>> On 18 Dec 2018, at 17:01, Vicky Vergara <vicky at georepublic.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all
>> This is Vicky from Halifax team.
>>
>> Congratulations Calgary for the impressive win of 13 votes.
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2018-December/005017.html
>>
>> I wonder if someone can give some feed back on what we did so, so so
>> wrong that we didn't get any vote?
>>
>> Regards
>> Vicky
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:34 AM María Arias de Reyna <delawen at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 2:12 PM michael terner <ternergeo at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 on Til's fair and accurate response.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, it was a fair and open process, with only the vote being
>>>> non-public but supervised by two respected CROs. As observed by Til, the
>>>> one "issue" that arose on the recusal was addressed on the public
>>>> Conference Dev mailing list. Actually, the only thing that is not open is
>>>> the origin of the phrase used in Maria's first email today: "there has
>>>> been some concerns raised." Where are these "concerns" coming from?
>>>> When were they raised? Are they limited to the "recusal issue" from Venka?
>>>> If not, what are the additional concerns?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, no additional concerns. Just the one made on the conference dev
>>> mailing list.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
>> Salzmannstraße 44,
>> 81739 München, Germany
>>
>> Vicky Vergara
>> Operations Research
>>
>> eMail: vicky at georepublic.de
>> Web: https://georepublic.info
>>
>> Tel: +49 (089) 4161 7698-1
>> Fax: +49 (089) 4161 7698-9
>>
>> Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
>> CEO: Daniel Kastl
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
> Salzmannstraße 44,
> 81739 München, Germany
>
> Vicky Vergara
> Operations Research
>
> eMail: vicky at georepublic.de
> Web: https://georepublic.info
>
> Tel: +49 (089) 4161 7698-1
> Fax: +49 (089) 4161 7698-9
>
> Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
> CEO: Daniel Kastl
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181218/4c5a6949/attachment.html>