[OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021

[Jonathan Moules]

Hi Steven,

Indeed, and I would then suggest taking all of that hard earned 
experience, knowledge, priorities, and weightings and putting them 
inside an objective, measurable framework where it is less susceptible 
to biases, both conscious and not.

This would produce a much more open process, more in line with the O in 
OSGeo and the "open philosophy" part of the OSGeo Mission Statement. It 
also means experience and lessons learnt aren't lost when people leave 
the voting pool as with Cameron's input for instance.

Depending on the scoring metrics used, it would also allow for a more 
direct comparison between proposals. And as a bonus, the scoring/metrics 
being open means it's open to comment and feedback from everyone, 
meaning the process is now more "participatory community driven 
development" (again, straight from the one-sentence Mission Statement).

Cheers,

Jonathan


On 2019-06-06 19:18, Steven Feldman wrote:
> Jonathan
>
> Each member of the committee will bring their own priorities and 
> experiences to the voting process.
>
> So for you the environmental considerations might be paramount while 
> for someone else delivering a highly affordable delegate price may be 
> their priority or another might be concerned about overall financial 
> risk to OSGeo and someone else might be very focussed on diversity. We 
> each have a different set of criteria and we also apply different 
> levels of importance to those criteria.
>
> The current system allows each voter to apply their own criteria and 
> weightings and to select the proposal that they think best, the 
> majority vote then wins. I know when I vote I usually have a good 
> feeling for one of the proposals based on a mix of factors, you could 
> say that was unconscious bias, I would say it was a combination of 
> instinct and experience
>
> 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 6 Jun 2019, at 17:55, Jonathan Moules 
>> <jonathan-lists at lightpear.com <mailto:jonathan-lists at lightpear.com>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi List,
>>
>> Following the protracted discussion about voters in the parallel 
>> thread it occurs to me that it's begging the question that voting is 
>> good.
>>
>> Why exactly do we have voting for this? Surely the better and (far) 
>> less subjective option is to an objective scoring system by which to 
>> measure the quality of the submissions? There's still element of 
>> subjectivity of course ("is this answer a 6/10 or a 7/10?"), but it's 
>> largely objective, measurable, and transparent.
>>
>> As far as I can tell from the transparency in the current voting 
>> (i.e., none) and reading the proposals (half of which usually reads 
>> like a tourist brochure), votes could easily currently be getting 
>> cast via "I want to go on holiday there next year". And while I'm not 
>> suggesting that's actually happening intentionally, it's almost 
>> certainly going to be a subconscious bias in the current process.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> On 2019-06-05 08:07, Till Adams 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 <mailto: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/20190606/0234cea2/attachment-0001.html>