[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020
Till Adams
till.adams at fossgis.de
Tue Dec 18 23:23:57 PST 2018
Vicky,
it is agreed, that the final results will not be published. That's also
the reason for having two independent CRO's - they count the votes and
then send the name of the winning team to the Chair of the Conference
committee.
This practice has worked well in the past and as long as I am involved,
we did not have the situation, that there was a discussion after the
final vote. Both, winning and not winning teams accepted the vote by the
conference committee and personnally I do not understand, what the
reason is in not doing so.
I know, that there was a tough decision made in 2014, but there was a
tie in the CC decision. And obviously we did not have a tie in this year.
We can always get better and re-think our selection process for the
future (thanks to Eli for his thoughts!), but starting a discussion on a
voting procedure, that has already been done, feels a little like having
a "Gschmäckle" ("taste") as we say in Germany.
The whole decision procedure was clear before the Rfp process started.
As I understand it: By handing in a LoI and a proposal the teams agree
on this procedure.
As already said, for me it's time to congratulate the winning team and
care for having again a great event in 2020.
Till
Am 18.12.18 um 20:15 schrieb Vicky Vergara:
> Hi Paul,
> I wasnt subscribed to the list, so when you clicked the reply to all,
> the Conference-dev mailing list was omitted
> I just subscribed and sent my request to the Conference Committee members
> So I am sending forwarding to the Conference Dev list, in order to
> keep mail history complete.
>
> Regards
> Vicky
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:06 PM Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca
> <mailto:pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>> wrote:
>
> I think the word I was actually reaching for was "debrief". After
> an RFP or a job interview it's expected that the candidates have
> an opportunity to ask for a debrief to understand what is going on.
>
> I didn't vote, but if I had I would have voted for Calgary. As Eli
> noted there were no major show-stoppers on either side, both
> locations could have hosted successfully, based on the submitted
> bids, so it came down to relatively small things.
>
> - Calgary is better connected internationally, and in North
> America, with more direct flights, cheaper flights, to more
> destinations
> - Calgary arrived with more sponsorship dollars already "in hand",
> so had a lower risk profile
>
> P.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vicky Vergara
> <vicky at georepublic.de <mailto:vicky at georepublic.de>> wrote:
>
> Hello Conference Committee members:
>
> On recommendation of Paul Ramsey, and using his terminology
>
> As member of the Halifax team:
> I would like to make a "post-mortem" public request of:
> Clarifying the details of the results of the second phase.
> Based on the details of that result I would make or no make a
> "post-mortem" confidential request for feedback
>
> Consider that:
> From my point of view, 12-1 7-6 make a huge difference
> As some results like 12-1 for me means: that we, Halifax team,
> did something really wrong (Would make the "post-mortem"
> confidential request).
> As other results like 7-6 , for me means: that we, Halifax
> team, did a very good job, and the decision was tough.
>
> Regards
> Vicky (member of the Halifax team)
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:22 AM Paul Ramsey
> <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca <mailto:pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>>
> wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:delawen at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 2:12 PM michael
>>> terner <ternergeo at gmail.com
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 <http://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 <mailto: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 <http://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
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> --
>
> Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
> Salzmannstraße 44,
> 81739 München, Germany
>
> Vicky Vergara
> Operations Research
>
> eMail: vicky at georepublic.de <http://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
>
>
>
> --
> Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
> Salzmannstraße 44,
> 81739 München, Germany
>
> Vicky Vergara
> Operations Research
>
> eMail: vicky at georepublic.de <http://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/20181219/f64d083d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list