[OSGeo-Conf] Draft RfP document FOSS4G 2020
Till Adams
till.adams at fossgis.de
Mon Sep 17 03:21:42 PDT 2018
Folks,
if this is an issue, let's handle it like this:
- the bidding teams *can* send their proposal to me & someone else from
CC (Guido? Michael?), if they want to get rid of it before the official
deadline and if they fear publishing their proposal to the public
earlier than other teams
- in that case the bidder posts only a submission-note on the ML
- if not, they are open to publish their proposal via the mailing
list, just like it was the years before
This does not apply for LoI's.
Is that okay (I feel that we don't need a motion here)?
Till
Am 17.09.2018 um 11:30 schrieb michael terner:
> +1
>
> I like the notion of an "email announcement" to the list stating "we
> have submitted and are ready for the next phase of Q&A".
>
> mt
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 2:41 PM Guido Stein <guido at guidostein.com
> <mailto:guido at guidostein.com>> wrote:
>
> Good points,
>
> I think announcement that the proposal has been submitted makes sense.
>
> Guido
>
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018, 3:46 PM Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
> <mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:49 PM, Till Adams
> <till.adams at fossgis.de <mailto:till.adams at fossgis.de>> wrote:
> > Guido,
> >
> > Most importantly to me and perhaps should be discussed here
> is that I think
> > that we should make the collection of the full proposals
> private until we
> > are ready to release them all on the wiki. This would make
> it possible for
> > people who turned their proposals early to feel secure that
> their
> > competitors are not using the information from their
> publicly shared
> > proposal in the competitive bid.
> >
>
> Sounds reasonable. I think that the old method was a
> combination of
> waiting until close to the deadline and thinking that if other
> LOCs
> need to look at yours, they've got no chance anyway.
>
> >
> > the 2 times I was involved, we had once only 1 proposal, for
> 2019 the
> > proposals came in within the last 2 hours of the period. So
> this was no
> > issue, but I see your point.
> >
> > In order to keep this fair also, we might have two people
> out of CC who
> > receive the proposals and these 2 have the duty to release
> them on the list
> > when the proposal period ends. As chair, I can be one of
> these two.
>
> I would still like to require that the LOCs email the list
> before the
> deadline that they have turned in their proposals. This
> ensures that
> they are subscribed to the mailing list, who speaks for the LOC,
> directs response questions and comments at them, etc. It also
> lets
> them set the subject line and otherwise establish the
> groundwork for
> their bid. It also publicly announces it before the
> deadline. Then
> you or any designated third party can reply with the
> attachment after
> the deadline.
>
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> >
> > Till
> >
> >
> >
> > Does anyone have an objection to this?
> >
> > Guido
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:28 AM Till Adams
> <till.adams at fossgis.de <mailto:till.adams at fossgis.de>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear CC!
> >>
> >> We have a draft of the RfP document for the 2020 call now:
> >>
> >> The draft RfP is
> >> at
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ltOnAoiFSTl7ERdlFKUvx-Jh9eDpVQgEn4AoCIp4SE/edit?usp=sharing
> >>
> >> Due to Steven, this is an open document, anyone with the
> link can view
> >> and comment.
> >>
> >> I know we are little late, but the document is based on the
> RfP of the
> >> past years. Feel free to comment on this document until
> *this* friday
> >> (14.09.2018) 12h CET, after that I will kick out the call
> for 2020 and
> >> we have to finalize the document and resolute all comments.
> >>
> >> Special thanks to Steven and Michael, who did the main work and
> >> improvements on this document!
> >>
> >> Till
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> <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
> <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
> <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 <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Terner
> ternergeo at gmail.com <mailto:ternergeo at gmail.com>
> (M) 978-631-6602
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20180917/8cb08631/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list