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

Wed Dec 19 05:09:18 PST 2018

Vicky

I am not going to say how I voted or to feedback on any specifics of either bid. However in response to your request I will share my methodology over the last 6 years of being one of the selection committee for FOSS4G (gosh it has been a long time doing this).

I re-read the RfP to remind myself of the criteria that the CC has set for selection (each year we review the RfP docs and they evolve based on the community input)
I then sit down and read through all of the proposals, making notes as I go on things that may not be clear, may be an area of concern, things that excite me
I then pause to reflect on whether any of the proposals have “deal breakers” or similar. Assuming there aren’t I then go through the budgets with a fine tooth comb. I am a numbers guy and I am very aware of the importance of the surplus from FOSS4G to the overall finances of OSGeo and our ability to fund future activities.
Now I can draft and post a list of questions to each bid team (checking that all teams have provided answers to each question in their proposals)
I review the responses to my questions and those of other CC members.
At this point I may have a clear favourite, if not I will draw up some kind of matrix and try and do a side by side comparison.
I make a decision, I sit on it for a day or two, I vote.

What does that tell you about how I reach a decision? Not a lot! The reason being that my decision is influenced by a myriad of small factors, a view on the vision and and team behind a proposal, a sense of responsibility with regard to the financial impact on OSGeo and also my own experience of organising several large conferences, a FOSS4G and a couple of UK events. And those are just my criteria, 13 people voted in this selection process and not all of them will have been focussed on the same priorities as me.

If you are thinking of bidding for a global FOSS4G in Mexico in the future, my advice would be to approach one or two past chairs who have been selectors and ask them to advise/coach you in how to present the best possible proposal.

Seasons greetings
______
Steven

> On 19 Dec 2018, at 07:23, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
> 
> 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 it is agreed, that the final results will not be published.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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20181219/3b858312/attachment-0001.html>