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

Wed Dec 19 09:15:23 PST 2018

Thanks all for your responses.
With your responses I consider my questions as solved.
>From my part there is no more comments on this mail thread .

And again, I say
Congratulations Calgary!

Regards
Vicky

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 7:09 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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).
>
>
>    1. 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)
>    2. 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
>    3. 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.
>    4. 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)
>    5. I review the responses to my questions and those of other CC
>    members.
>    6. 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.
>    7. 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>
> 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>
>> 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>
>>> 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> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
>
> 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 listConference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttps://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

-- 

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20181219/24e8a87b/attachment-0001.html>