[OSGeo-Conf] some decisions in the pipe

[Paul Ramsey]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 2:42 AM, María Arias de Reyna <delawen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
>> > Hi Conference comittee,
>> ...
>> > 3. Bid process
>> > I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
>> > the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
>> > gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
>> > I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
>> > would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
>> > the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
>> > marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
>> > happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
>> > one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
>> > soon as well.
>>
>> On this topic, I don't think that it matters.  It is easier to compare
>> two proposals that are in a vary similar format.  And sticking to the
>> template format may indeed be an advantage.
>
> We already have an economic template, but for the "what do you plan to do"
> and "how do you plan to do it" I think we should allow and foment
> creativity.

I have no position on creativity per se, but I think the suggestion
that we need identically structured proposals in order to carry out
some kind of rigorous section-by-section comparison regime is to imply
a level of formalism that simply doesn't exist in our process. Read
the freaking proposals. Form an opinion. Read them again to see if
your opinion is shite. Decide.

P.