[OSGeo-Conf] early Preparation of RFP 2021

Wed Jun 5 12:28:33 PDT 2019

THANKS Til for commencing the process!
+1 to Steven pointing out this a *practical issue* given quorum requirements
+1 to the idea of committee members affirmatively stating their intent to
be an active, voting part of a given selection process *before* the
submission of proposals
+1 to this being an important set of issues and needed discussion

As Maria AR points out, the voting process is diminished if people don't
*make* the time necessary to read the proposals in detail. And as with the
2020 competition, it's a significant time commitment with 3 LOIs and 2 fine
proposals. Rushing through a proposal is not fair to the submitters who
have put in huge effort in meeting our guidelines and creating their
proposals. And as several have commented, stuff happens in everyone's lives
and there may be legitimate reasons why someone "needs to take a year off."
Finally, as Maria AB suggested, it would seem reasonable to me that if
someone can't make the time to actively participate in a voting process for
some number of consecutive years (3 years? 5?) then that person should be
encouraged to resign the committee (or, even be removed as per a rule that
the CC may adopt). Indeed, the process of "affirmatively confirming intent
to vote" that Steven suggested creates a measurable way of knowing if
people have participated, or not.

MT

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:42 PM María Arias de Reyna <delawen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think I missed that email :) But yes, I think it should be best.
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:01 PM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 to that Maria AR
>>
>> " Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly
>> agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have
>> until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't
>> explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although
>> they can ask questions like any other osgeo member)” is just about the same
>> as I suggested
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>> newsletter
>>
>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 14:50, María Arias de Reyna <delawen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I also think this is a problem. Choosing the foss4g venue is one of the
>> most relevant tasks of OSGeo because it decides where and how the community
>> is going to grow that year.
>>
>> Having not committed people on that decision is an issue. And I
>> understand someone may not have time to review it some years, that's fine,
>> we cannot be 100% always. Skipping some processes is normal.
>>
>> But people that can't take the time to review it year after year shows
>> they are no longer interested/are disconnected/are too busy and we should
>> acknowledge it and don't make them part of the decision. I don't think
>> pressing them to participate is also good, this is a hard decision and
>> should be taken by people who can and want to do it.
>>
>> Having people not voting leads to forcing other people to vote without
>> really reviewing the proposals. Because we have to get the minimum quorum
>> and we need votes, no matter if they didn't have the time to review.  I
>> don't think it is a good idea to have people without the time to properly
>> review the proposals feeling forced to vote.
>>
>>  Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly
>> agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have
>> until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't
>> explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although
>> they can ask questions like any other osgeo member).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> The other Maria.
>>
>> El mié., 5 jun. 2019 14:16, Maria Antonia Brovelli <
>> maria.brovelli at polimi.it> escribió:
>>
>>> Dear Till
>>> If I'm the only person who believe that this is a problem, I will
>>> survive also with this situation. In the CC I'm simply a member and I
>>> prefer to put my (small) free time on something where I have more
>>> responsabilities.
>>> I remember enough well the discussions of the past and I don't want to
>>> find myself again in similar not confortable situations. Thanks a lot and
>>> go ahead as you please.
>>> Best
>>> Maria
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Messaggio originale --------
>>> Da: Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de>
>>> Data: 05/06/19 13:32 (GMT+01:00)
>>> A: conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>>>
>>> Dear Maria,
>>>
>>> I would suggest the following: We de-couple the topic of "non-active
>>> members" from "voters for RFP 2021".
>>>
>>> For RFP 2021 I would proceed as Steven suggested.
>>>
>>> For the "non-active-members"-topic, I would suggest, that you start a
>>> motion in CC. If the motion is accepted, we then can discuss - also based
>>> on the past RFP's - who is affected.
>>>
>>> How about that?
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 05.06.19 um 12:36 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
>>>
>>> I believe that having a large committee of always silent people is
>>> useless. Better less, but active.
>>>
>>> After having proposed, if people don't show up, I propose to remove
>>> them. It could be not the first year, we can consider if this happens for
>>> two following years.
>>>
>>> I like neither removement nor auto-removement but I don't see the point
>>> of being in a Committee if one person has not time for voting once a year.
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot!
>>> Best,
>>> Maria
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Messaggio originale --------
>>> Da: Till Adams <adams at terrestris.de> <adams at terrestris.de>
>>> Data: 05/06/19 11:51 (GMT+01:00)
>>> A: conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R:  *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>>>
>>> Maria,
>>>
>>> we can do the following (and that is what I did last year):
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> -> ask whether people will vote on RFP
>>>
>>> [wait]
>>>
>>> -> re-ask those, who did not reply
>>>
>>> [wait]
>>>
>>> -> propose those who do not want to vote AND those who did not reply, to
>>> leave the committee.
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, there are some people, that did not vote for the past years, but
>>> is auto-removement really what we want to do in our community?
>>>
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 05.06.19 um 11:44 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
>>> > Dear Stefan, Till and All
>>> > I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main
>>> > commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time
>>> > for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee.
>>> > Best,
>>> > Maria
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -------- Messaggio originale --------
>>> > Da: Till Adams <adams at terrestris.de> <adams at terrestris.de>
>>> > Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00)
>>> > A: conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> > Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>>> >
>>> > Dear Steven,
>>> >
>>> > thanks for correction ;-).
>>> >
>>> > I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
>>> > the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can
>>> remember.
>>> >
>>> > Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway
>>> in
>>> > advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
>>> > that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>>> >
>>> > Till
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>>> >> Great work Till, thank you
>>> >>
>>> >> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>>> >>
>>> >> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>>> >>
>>> >> I have changed to:
>>> >>
>>> >> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>>> >>
>>> >> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
>>> >> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
>>> >> little more time for proposal writing?
>>> >>
>>> >> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
>>> >> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
>>> >> committee?
>>> >> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
>>> >> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
>>> >> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this
>>> vote
>>> >> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
>>> >> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers
>>> >> ______
>>> >> Steven
>>> >>
>>> >> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>> >>
>>> >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>>> >> newsletter
>>> >>
>>> >>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de
>>> >>> <mailto:till.adams at fossgis.de <till.adams at fossgis.de>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dear CC!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for
>>> 2021.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I added this WIKI page here:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course
>>> for
>>> >>> other errors.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them
>>> to
>>> >>> you.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Have a great day!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Till
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> >>> 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
>>> > FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>>> >
>>> > ------------------------------------------------
>>> > 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 <http://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/
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Conference_dev mailing list
>>> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
>>> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> 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/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing listConference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttps://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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> 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

-- 
Michael Terner
ternergeo at gmail.com
(M) 978-631-6602
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20190605/959a6803/attachment-0001.html>