[OSGeo-Conf] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2021

[Steven Feldman]

Jonathan

I think you are the only person on this list expressing these concerns.

Of course we all have “personal biases” but however you try to create a framework for decision making you will introduce some bias, you just might not be aware of it.

The public calls for questions after submission of LoIs and again after Full Proposals allow any interested party (not just the voting members) to question the bidders and to seek to inform/influence the voting members. The system is not “closed"

The system of voting has worked well for a long time and I see no reason to change it.
______
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 12 Sep 2019, at 11:01, Jonathan Moules <jonathan-lists at lightpear.com> wrote:
> 
> >  from someone who has no idea on what basis each individual member ultimately decides than a serious proposal.
> 
> Which is exactly the point. No-one knows what the criterion used are, it is a closed system with absolutely no transparency in the critical voting phase. Ironic for an organisation whose name starts with "Open", and the antithesis of the principles behind Open movements.
> 
> Or put another way, how do any of us know that people's votes were not influenced by:
> 
> * being paid off
> 
> * being coerced in some fashion
> 
> * having some grudge / interest
> 
> etc
> 
> To be clear, I have no particular reason to believe any of these things are the case, but given the closed nature of the system, how do we know?
> 
> Or less ethically problematic but more likely given the human mind:
> 
> * various biases, conscious or otherwise (diversity related, regional, etc)
> 
> * Networking effect - "I like who's running this more"
> 
> * preferred holiday destination
> 
> etc, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> On 2019-09-11 07:31, Till Adams wrote:
>> Dear Jonathan,
>> 
>> looking at the linked WIKI-page - honestly I do not see many points to
>> be added to the RfP here.
>> 
>> The proposal to change the voting procedure (presumably) you proposed
>> are difficult to implement.
>> 
>> Especially as the phrase "members vote for their favourite next holiday
>> destination" honestly seems more like an accusation
>> from someone who has no idea on what basis each individual member
>> ultimately decides than a serious proposal.
>> 
>> I would favour to have a further discussion on this, if you see really
>> an issue here, I don't.
>> 
>> Till
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Am 06.09.19 um 15:32 schrieb Jonathan Moules:
>>> Hi Till,
>>> 
>>> Back in July you asked for feedback on the RFP process for 2021 to be
>>> put here:
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Changes_in_RfP_Document_for_2021 <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Changes_in_RfP_Document_for_2021>
>>> 
>>> I've not seen anything further on this and the suggestions listed
>>> (Disclosure: Yes, they're mine) don't appear in the docs.
>>> 
>>> I'm guess this was an oversight or did I miss a thread?
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Jonathan
>>> 
>>> On 2019-09-06 07:32, Till Adams wrote:
>>>> Dear Community,
>>>> 
>>>> just passed and survived the last FOSS4G in Bucharest, the community is
>>>> looking forward for the next global FOSS4G conferences. We, OSGeo's
>>>> Conference Committee, are happy to announce the call for location for
>>>> the
>>>> 
>>>> "Free and Open Source Software for Geospatial Conference 2021"
>>>> 
>>>> to be held in "other regions". Precisely this means that the conference
>>>> can be anywhere on the world, except Europe and North America. Only in
>>>> case that we do not receive any appropriate bid from these parts of the
>>>> world, we will consider to accept bids from Europe or North America.
>>>> 
>>>> Summer holidays are over, no reason not to start your work, grab some
>>>> people together, build a team, have fun and work out your bid! 2021 is
>>>> right around the corner and be proud to get all the FOSS4G folks to your
>>>> country, to your city, to your pub and introduce them to your local
>>>> environment!
>>>> 
>>>> Please find all details on [1] and more background information on [2].
>>>> In case that you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask the
>>>> conference committee or your barkeeper ;-)!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Have fun!
>>>> 
>>>> Till, on behalf of OSGeo's Conference committee
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process>
>>>> 
>>>> [2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee>
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>_______________________________________________
> 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/20190912/f9b6d0e3/attachment-0001.html>