[OSGeo-Conf] some decisions in the pipe

[Steven Feldman]

 I agree that we should encourage creativity and that mandating a format may be unhelpful.

We could request some mandatory responses to be included in a section or appendix that would enable those who like to compare detail to do so without inhibiting creative ideas and presentation. 

I have noted a trend to increasingly more “professionally designed” proposals over the last few years, that is good but should not be a factor in our selection process and we should make that clear in  future rounds.

I agree with Eli that in recent years (not 2018 where we only had one proposal) we have been fortunate to have proposals which were each very good so the final decision for each voter is going to be made on some kind of gut feel. That’s ok, our judgement seems to work.
______
Steven


> On 31 Jan 2018, at 17:00, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca <mailto: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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20180131/55cae244/attachment-0001.html>