<div dir="ltr">Thank you Till!<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:15 AM Till Adams <<a href="mailto:tadams@terrestris.de">tadams@terrestris.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><div>Dear Maria,<br></div><div><br></div><div>(please forward this email to the board list, as I am not registered with this email adress)<br></div><div><br></div><div>I can confirm that the vote was fair and all voters had the same informations. I'd invite you to contact also Arnulf and Cameron, the two CRO's, I am sure, they will confirm also.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Presumably your question comes up, because there was the issue, that Paul Ramsey was asked to take the program chair of the Calgary LOC in between both voting stages. So Paul - not member of CLOC - voted on stage 1 but stepped back on voting for step 2, because that time he was already in CLOC. He confirmed, that he did not plan to enter CLOC when voting on stage 1 and I see no reason not to trust him as a longterm and earned member of our community. If that caused the issue, I think the information (and if wanted, confirmation by the CRO's), that he did not vote on stage 2 should be fine, right?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Steven and me asked Venka, who brought up the issue with Paul to clarify, where he sees problems with that, but he did not reply yet (to be correct, until yesterday evening, as I have no access to my fossgis-emails today).<br></div><div><br></div><div>In my eyes, it's time congratulate the Calgary team and to focus on having a successful FOSS4G event for the whole community and not to question the electoral process. If you read all the mails I sent to CC and the voting members, I can't imagine on how to make the process more transparent. If there are any suggestions for the future, CC is open to discuss this.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards, Till<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><hr id="gmail-m_6613799163305443320zwchr"><div><b>Von: </b>"María Arias de Reyna" <<a href="mailto:delawen@gmail.com" target="_blank">delawen@gmail.com</a>><br><b>An: </b>"Till Adams" <<a href="mailto:till.adams@fossgis.de" target="_blank">till.adams@fossgis.de</a>><br><b>CC: </b>"conference dev" <<a href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>>, "osgeo-board List" <<a href="mailto:board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">board@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br><b>Gesendet: </b>Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2018 08:12:30<br><b>Betreff: </b>Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] Final Result on RfP 2020<br></div><div><br></div><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Till and Conference Committee,</div><br><div>For the board to vote and approve this decision, we would like a short summary of the process and an explicit clarification that it was fair. Usually just the short summary would be fine, but as there has been some concerns raised, we would like an explicit confirmation that all candidatures had the same opportunities and no classified information, advantage or unfair help was given to any of them.</div><br><div>For the summary of the process, I think most of it you already sent in both emails with the news of the outcome of the voting. Just wanted to make sure there's nothing else worth mentioning or if there's something else we should publicly record for the future.</div><br><div>As a suggestion, it would be good to clarify the process to make transparent and clear what happens in case of recusation during the election process (and if it is possible to do so, on what circunstamces), so we all know explicitly the rules before entering the process and no one can suspect unfair game in the future. <br></div><br><div>Thank you for your work and congratulations to Calgary!</div><div>María.<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:31 PM Till Adams <<a href="mailto:till.adams@fossgis.de" target="_blank">till.adams@fossgis.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Dear CC & OSGeo-community,</p>
<p>I just received the final results from our voting CRO's.</p>
<p>They have received 13 votes. Some voters noted that the quality
of both proposals was excellent and that it was difficult to
select.<br>
</p>
<p>The winning team hosting FOSS4G 2020 is <br>
</p>
<p><font size="+1"><b>**Calgary**</b></font></p>
<p>Many thanks to the Halifax team for their great effort and great
proposal, also many thanks to the Niagara Falls team, that also
handed in a LoI.</p>
<p>I only can tell everybody, that regardless where the conference
takes place, it is always a pleasure to join and it is always an
event for the whole community!!</p>
<p>Finally I have one wish for christmas: Please support the winning
team in order to have a great event in 2020 in Calgary!</p>
<p>And last but not least - many thanks to our CRO's as well!<br>
</p>
<p>Cheers, Till<br>
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br></blockquote></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>Conference_dev mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div>