[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G selection 2014 - consideration for new method
Till Adams
adams at terrestris.de
Wed Dec 19 22:37:58 PST 2018
Dear CC-list,
I've created a WIKI page [1] as our sink for our thoughts on new
selection methods. Feel free to place your ideas here, please have a
look, whether you may just second ideas from others.
Regards, Till
[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Consideration_for_new_selection_methods
Am 19.12.18 um 16:47 schrieb Jonathan Neufeld:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I think that this conversation is an excellent one to have, and shows an
> appetite for continual improvement and engagement in the community.
>
>
>
> I largely agree with Eli’s initial comments about the level of effort,
> duplication, and the similarity of the two applications - it creates an
> engaging conversation when a group focused on collaboration and
> consensus is forced to reconcile with a competitive process.
>
>
>
> When looking at revising the selection process I would suggest first
> articulating a strong and clear understanding of why OSGeo holds the
> FOSS4G event each year. With that understanding in place you can create
> an informal scorecard for each person on the review committee to use in
> assessing the bids. Some locations and LOCs may perform poorly in the
> /Financial Return/ category, but score much higher on the /Spreading the
> Message to New Areas/ category. Each person on the review committee may
> have different personal beliefs about which criteria are more important
> and this sort of informal framework would help articulate the decision
> making process.
>
>
>
> In potentially revising the process I am wary of unintended
> consequences, for example:
>
> - If the second place bidder “wins” the right to host FOSS4GNA
> (or another regional event) does this decrease the perceived value of
> regional events?
>
> - Hosting more than one global event at a time could
> cannibalize the attendance at both events and introduce a substantial
> amount of risk in attendance
>
>
>
> While collaboration is usually best, I would suggest that competition
> forces everyone to improve. Speaking on the recent 2020 process, having
> strong competition from another capable and high-value team forced us to
> work harder, and look for new ways to improve a Calgary bid.
>
>
>
> If the committee is receiving proposals of near-equivalence I would
> suggest that this indicates the community is mature and understands what
> it takes to put on a FOSS4G event. Perhaps future event selection could
> be based on criteria that takes FOSS4G over and above a “standard” event
> so that it continues to grow while reflecting the values of community
> members.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Conference_dev <conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Ramsey
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2018 10:46 AM
> *To:* Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) <bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>
> *Cc:* OSGeo-Conf <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>; Eli Adam
> <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
> *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G selection 2014 - consideration for
> new method
>
>
>
> Well, there's the immediate moment opportunity, which is to say "can we
> not slot FOSS4G-NA 2021 into Halifax right now?" and that obviously
> requires (a) Halifax team to want to do that and (b) the semi-opaque NA
> process to recognize and make that happen.
>
>
>
> And there's the wider, more general question of "is an RFP process
> actually how we want to do this anymore?" which I think requires some
> visioning around what a more collaborative process would be?
>
>
>
> I don't think "you all get a cookie" in the form of multi-siting is
> actually a great idea. Nor do I think that "virtual conferences" are
> super duper either. Maybe we can all just put our Youtubes up on the
> same day, but something is lost in the process :)
>
>
>
> P
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:27 AM Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)
> <bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us <mailto:bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>> wrote:
>
> One immediate thought to stir things a bit (to this really good
> message BTW!!), with todays technology, why couldn’t two separate
> conferences be put on at the same time, with digital cross
> pollination of events where feasible? Might be a future growth path
> actually, where region conference all happen at once or at a mimimum
> on an overlapping schedule of some sort. Just thinking out loud.
>
>
>
> bobb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2018, at 11:15 AM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
> <mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Given the quality of both proposals for 2020, I've been thinking
> a lot about the best criteria to make a decision. Since about
> 2014 and possibly before, I think that the FOSS4G selection
> process does not serve our community or the conference as well
> as it could [1]. The selection process may also have harmful
> side effects. Due to my personal involvement with 2014, I'll
> keep most of my comments oriented towards 2014 but it has been
> applicable to other years as well.
>
>
>
> What are valid criteria for selecting the FOSS4G LOC? The
> criteria I personally have used are that FOSS4G is OSGeo's
> primary source of income and thus very important. The
> conference should have a high probability of success and low
> risk. I look at the budget, how reasonable I think the numbers
> are, and if there are any objectionable contracts (usually hotel
> block commitments). I look at the LOC members and their
> experience. I also look at the geography of past conferences
> and value bringing FOSS4G to a new region. Beyond that, I have
> not been able to come up with additional selection criteria that
> I consider valid. What do others think? I'd like to add to
> this list. Recapping the criteria, that is:
>
> 1) High probability of success
>
> 2) low risk
>
> 3) reasonable budget
>
> 4) absence of objectionable contracts
>
> 5) LOC experience
>
> 6) FOSS4G geography and history
>
>
>
> (I also have personal preferences like where I might have a free
> place to stay, what's a cheaper travel option, who I know, etc
> but don't consider those valid criteria. And purposely don't
> vote on those items.)
>
>
>
> Given those valid criteria, I often evaluate all the FOSS4G
> proposals as extremely good. Each having extremely high
> probability of success and relatively low risk. In many years,
> I've not really found valid reasons to select one proposal over
> another. I found that to be the case even when I was on the LOC
> of one of the proposals!
>
>
>
> While a member of the 2014 LOC during the bid process, I could
> not honestly assert that the PDX proposal was any better than
> the DC proposal. Obviously as a member of the PDX LOC, I was in
> favor of ours, but that self-serving interest is not a valid
> basis. Both proposals would have led to great conferences with
> high probability of success, low risk, realistic budgets, no
> objectionable contracts, great LOC experience, and FOSS4G
> geography. I've found this near-equivalence of proposals to be
> the case in more than one subsequent year.
>
>
>
> With proposals of near-equivalence, I see no point in voting and
> selecting one. This leads to putting two spatial centers of
> great OSGeo and FOSS4G enthusiasm into opposition. This
> competing is not the typical collaborative OSGeo and FOSS4G
> way. It is in fact perhaps contrary to the manner in which we
> build software together. With the FOSS4G selection method we
> use now, we invariably greatly disappoint one of the proposal
> groups. We also are creating a lot of waste and wasted effort.
> I'd like to see a conference selection method that more closely
> matches the collaborative spirit in which we approach other
> endeavors.
>
>
>
> How our current selection method fails to best serve the
> conference or our community and possible harmful side effects:
>
> 1. Makes something trivial overly important.
>
> 2. Creates divisions
>
> 3. Zero-sum competition (as opposed to the competition of the
> old WMS shootouts which were beneficial to all the softwares and
> users of the software).
>
> 4. Does not mirror our collaborative approach to software
> development and other collaborative activities.
>
> 5. Disappoints a group and region
>
> 6. Fails to make use of great potential.
>
> 7. Does not make a better conference based on the above criteria
>
>
>
> I take FOSS4G selection more seriously than anything else that
> OSGeo does. FOSS4G selection is more important than anything
> that the Board will do in the next year. OSGeo's (financial)
> existence depends on the FOSS4G selection. Therefore I'd like us
> to re-examine how we make the selection. I'd like to consider a
> new FOSS4G selection method. Would you like to see a new FOSS4G
> selection method? What would that look like?
>
>
>
> This is an off-handed critique I leveled in private conversation
> which I'll quote: "If we were a competent organization, we would
> recognize that there is demand for TWO successful conferences in
> Canada. We would on the basis of costs and other advantages,
> select one for 2020 and the other for a 2021 regional conference
> (the 2021 "regional" conference may actually be "better" by
> following after the other and building on the enthusiasm and
> having another year of planning.)" I've not been involved with
> the FOSS4GNA organizing but perhaps these efforts could be
> harmonized in some manner? I'm not really knowledgeable on this
> topic, so someone knowledgeable should talk about this. While
> I'm straying from 2014 commentary, I'll also comment that these
> two 2020 proposals for a North American year were strikingly
> similar. Both are in Canada (I would have expected at least one
> US entry before two from Canada), both are taking the novel
> approach of in-housing the PCO services, and both rate well on
> the above valid criteria.
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] Previous thoughts about ties but similar to these
> thoughts. https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2014-February/006720.html
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could
> produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the
> Internet, we know that is not true.
>
> —Robert Wilensky
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
--
------------------------------------------------
SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework.
Jetzt umsteigen! QGIS 3 ist verfügbar.
------------------------------------------------
Mail: adams at terrestris.de
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
Kölnstraße 99
53111 Bonn
Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
Internet: www.terrestris.de
Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
Homepage unter folgendem Link:
https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list