<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Before I put this to formal vote (on 10 Jan), are there any
further comments on Conference Committee process?</p>
<p><a
href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Co<wbr>nference_Committee_Policy_Disc<wbr>ussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_<wbr>based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_<wbr>Shorter</a></p>
I'm not planning to address Michael/Venka's comments in this text,
as:<br>
1. If it were to change, it should change in the RFP, not in this
text<br>
2. We have not yet reached rough consensus<br>
(I'm not planning to take this on myself)<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/12/2016 11:21 AM, Venkatesh
Raghavan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b16eabdc-0d40-d40a-def8-94d35690a3e2@gmail.com"
type="cite">I agree with the point made by Michael regarding the
<br>
submission of RFP's to an intermediary and making
<br>
them public after the passing of global deadline.
<br>
<br>
Best
<br>
<br>
Venka
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/29/2016 1:24 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Eli is correct. When we were revising the
RfP process, I suggested
<br>
proposals were sent to the CC chair rather than posted directly
to
<br>
the list, this was based on the concerns that Michael had
previously
<br>
expressed.
<br>
<br>
I am relieved that Eli persuaded me otherwise (the person
steering
<br>
the selection process has enough work to do without picking up
this
<br>
additional task). I tend to agree with Eli’s reasons for not
<br>
implementing the suggested change but I would like to hear
whether
<br>
any other LOC’s over the last few years have any concerns in
this
<br>
regard ______ Steven
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 27 Dec 2016, at 21:15, Eli Adam
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us"><eadam@co.lincoln.or.us></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Cameron Shorter
<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com"><mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com></a>>
<br>
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Michael,
<br>
<br>
That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text
<br>
should go into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling
this
<br>
document myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.
<br>
<br>
[1]
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents"><https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents></a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
(source in subversion)
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
I could help someone start on this when the time rolls around.
<br>
This is the last rfp in svn,
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018">https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018"><https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2018></a>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<br>
On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
<br>
<br>
I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to
item
<br>
#1 of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as
the
<br>
situation did not arise with the 2018 competition generating
only
<br>
one proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final
<br>
Proposals not be posted directly to the Conference Dev list
by
<br>
the proposing cities, but rather to an intermediary, who
would
<br>
then post them publicly after the global deadline has
passed. In
<br>
the 2017 competition there was a gap of >8 hours between
when the
<br>
first proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap
provides
<br>
the late submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier
<br>
submittals before submitting. I don't suggest that anything
<br>
untoward happened in 2017, but the "public posting" process
<br>
accommodates an opportunity for this to happen and is very
easily
<br>
remedied. A simple sentence added to #1 would cover this:
"Final
<br>
FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the proposing cities to
an
<br>
intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before the deadline;
and
<br>
the intermediary will post them publicly the day following
the
<br>
deadline."
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
This could be a change worth trying.
<br>
<br>
Steven was inclined to make that revision and I resisted it
some.
<br>
Part of bidding on FOSS4G is joining and participating in the
<br>
email list. Sometimes it takes a little effort for that to
happen.
<br>
Using an intermediary would address some timing issues,
however,
<br>
it introduces other issues. One is that the intermediary is
then
<br>
responsible for verifying the bid was received on time. There
is
<br>
always the potential for attachment, email, spam
classification,
<br>
and other problems which then the intermediary is mixed up
in. It
<br>
also means that list traffic is replying to the intermediary
<br>
instead of the LOC representative. The requirement to post to
the
<br>
list makes it entirely apparent by checking the archives if
your
<br>
proposal has posted,
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/">https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/"><https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/></a>, and
the burden
<br>
for those requirements are entirely on the LOC. It also
forces the
<br>
LOC representative to be on the list.
<br>
<br>
I'm not sure that there is an advantage to reading another bid
for
<br>
the same year before submitting. To some extent, all bids are
<br>
based on some collection of bids from previous years and all
share
<br>
many similarities. Many keys aspects of a bid can't be
changed in
<br>
a day or a few hours either. The subsequent question period
often
<br>
draws revisions in the bids to be more similar as well. I
suspect
<br>
that voting decisions are as much influenced by the question
period
<br>
as the initial bid. I'm not sure that the timing advantages
<br>
outweigh the intermediary disadvantages but am generally
inclined
<br>
to defer to more recent FOSS4G events and the people doing the
<br>
work. I would support trying this intermediary method if the
<br>
person running the RFP process is favorable to it.
<br>
<br>
Glad to see the refinement process at work each year. Thanks
for
<br>
working to improve the process.
<br>
<br>
Cheers, Eli
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
<br>
<br>
MT
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- Cameron Shorter M +61 419 142 254
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
On Dec 26, 2016 6:28 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <<a
href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
Conference committee,<br>
<br>
Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed
conference committee processes, addressing previous concerns from
Maria and Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with
the text [1].<br>
<br>
Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you
think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra
needing to be changed.<br>
<br>
Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably
all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a
motion as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll
leave up to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).<br>
<br>
The changes include:<br>
<br>
* There is no set number of people on the committee, just a
requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than
50% of the committee.<br>
<br>
* Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote
to try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all)
committee members to vote.<br>
<br>
* A number of other minor tweaks to the text.<br>
<br>
Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the
conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10
more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16
members [2] listed.<br>
<br>
Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the
committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.<br>
<br>
[1] <a
href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Co<wbr>nference_Committee_Policy_Disc<wbr>ussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_<wbr>based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_<wbr>Shorter</a><br>
<br>
[2] <a
href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Co<wbr>nference_Committee#Current_Mem<wbr>bers</a>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254</pre>
</body>
</html>