[OSGeo-Conf] some decisions in the pipe

[Eli Adam]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca> wrote:
> 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.

It may not have been clear by what I wrote above, but my intent was to
say that teams should be free to use any format they want (for
whatever advantage or disadvantage that format may bring).


>>
>> 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.

Now this is tangential, but I've increasingly found that I'm choosing
between 2+ very good proposals.  I've not been able to make a
hypothetical case "why this proposal is not good for OSGeo and
FOSS4G."  While I still prefer one proposal over the others (whether
that is geography, organizing team, ideas for the event, etc), I can't
pretend that it is a well reasoned important decision.  On many of
these, objectively evaluating the finances, risks, quality, etc, one
can only conclude that either one would be a great event that is
successful.  This has led me to question our selection process or at
least the importance.

I read them.  I like one more than the other.  I vote. (But does it
matter if both are great?)

Eli


>
> P.