<div><div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"></div></div></div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:42 PM Cameron Shorter <<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" target="_blank">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Jonathan,<br>
<br>
A great question to ask and for us to consider.<br>
<br>
Short answer: I feel we should keep our voting process.<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
Long answer: I'll rephrase your question as "Can we define a selection <br>
process which is more trustworthy than a group of people?"<br>
<br>
Defining a process: I think that writing an process which could <br>
differentiate between all the subtle factors which influences a good <br>
conference would be next to impossible, especially if trying to <br>
anticipate future factors as well. The best we can do is list selection <br>
criteria (as already in our RFQ docs) [1]. If we were to define a <br>
process, the next thing to happen is that bidding cities would try to <br>
game the system.<br>
<br>
The trustworthiness of the conference committee: We deliberately stack <br>
our committee with ex-chairs of prior OSGeo conferences. This is a very <br>
difficult position to fill, and each chair learns a significant amount <br>
about running a conference in the process, and all the subtle things <br>
that make it great or bad. I feel these people tend to be very <br>
qualified, intrinsically motivated, and hence trustworthy decision makers.<br>
<br>
So I'm also in favour of keeping the voting process from our conference <br>
committee.<br>
<br>
However, I think there is always room to refine our selection criteria. <br>
One think I think we should add to our list is "Security and Inclusivity <br>
within the host country". At foss4g Dar es Salaam, we discovered there <br>
were local laws which discriminated against our LGBT community. Till, if <br>
you are updating the RFQ document, can you add this to your checklist of <br>
things to add.</blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Good idea, follow through at the right time matters. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
Counter to Eli's suggestion that we haven't made a selection mistake: <br>
Foss4g 2012 was cancelled [2], which I feel we should consider a failure</blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I agree that we need to make sure any proposal exceeds a high bar on important criteria. That’s why I usually give some disclaimer like: <span style="color:rgb(49,49,49);word-spacing:1px">* this is again in the case of multiple</span></div><span style="color:rgb(49,49,49);word-spacing:1px">near equivalent high quality proposals. In the case of proposals that</span><br style="color:rgb(49,49,49);word-spacing:1px"><span style="color:rgb(49,49,49);word-spacing:1px">don't meet the important criteria, then it is an easy decision but</span><br style="color:rgb(49,49,49);word-spacing:1px"><span style="color:rgb(49,49,49);word-spacing:1px">that is not the situation we usually find ourselves in.</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><span style="color:rgb(49,49,49);word-spacing:1px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><span style="color:rgb(49,49,49);word-spacing:1px">Base criteria I look for before going on to other criteria are:</span></div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><span style="color:rgb(49,49,49);word-spacing:1px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap">1) High probability of success
2) low risk
3) reasonable budget
4) absence of objectionable contracts
5) LOC experience
6) FOSS4G geography and history</pre><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"><br></pre><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"><br></pre><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap">I think that beyond those criteria, Jonathan makes a good suggestion of considering sustainability. </pre><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"><br></pre><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap">Best regards, Eli</pre></div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><span style="color:rgb(49,49,49);word-spacing:1px"><br></span></div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
[1] <br>
<a href="https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2020/FOSS4G2020-request-for-proposal.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2020/FOSS4G2020-request-for-proposal.pdf</a><br>
<br>
[2] <br>
<a href="http://cameronshorter.blogspot.com/2012/08/analysing-downfall-of-foss4g-2012.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://cameronshorter.blogspot.com/2012/08/analysing-downfall-of-foss4g-2012.html</a><br>
<br>
On 8/6/19 7:16 am, Jonathan Moules wrote:<br>
> Hi Till, Eli, All,<br>
><br>
> > [Till] The fundamental idea behind the existing voting procedure is, <br>
> to make use of the knowledge of those, who already ran a conference <br>
> like this<br>
><br>
> Agreed, and as I've already noted, what happens when you leave the CC? <br>
> You've already lost Cameron's expertise and that of those who don't <br>
> actually vote.<br>
><br>
><br>
> > [Till] I do not have the feeling, that we in CC did fundamentally <br>
> wrong selections in the past years<br>
><br>
> Well, from a sustainability perspective I beg to differ. While Calgary <br>
> does do sustainability well, the Halifax one was definitely a step <br>
> above. The fact that Calgary is an excellent candidate for "most <br>
> isolated large-city in North America outside of Anchorage (Alaska)" <br>
> (it's not even on the passenger rail network!) and honestly, I'm <br>
> unclear on why it was even allowed to be a candidate given you're <br>
> guaranteeing that people will only get there by flying. For a <br>
> conference like FOSS4G, that's several tens of thousands of tons of <br>
> extra CO2 added straight to the troposphere from folks who would/could <br>
> otherwise have taken public transport (the "local" contingent of the <br>
> conference). I mean, what's it going to be in 2023, Hawaii?<br>
><br>
> This is also why I strongly disagree with Eli on this point:<br>
><br>
> > [Eli] As far as I can tell (i.e. also none), "where I want to go on <br>
> vacation" is the most valid criteria that we have currently as the <br>
> substantive criteria in both cases are so excellent and near equivalent.<br>
><br>
> Sustainability was a strong differentiator between the two proposals <br>
> and yet the least-sustainable proposal won, despite my non-member <br>
> sustainability questions. Alas I didn't notice the lack of rail <br>
> connection before the vote although I doubt that would have made a <br>
> difference. This is why in my view the current system doesn't work - <br>
> it's only selecting for the things that the committee care about and <br>
> given two otherwise near-identical proposals, the evidence would <br>
> suggest they don't seem to care about important things like <br>
> sustainability.<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Jonathan<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 2019-06-07 08:48, Till Adams wrote:<br>
>> Dear all,<br>
>><br>
>> I totall agree with Steven and Eli. The fundamental idea behind the<br>
>> existing voting procedure is, to make use of the knowledge of those, who<br>
>> already ran a conference like this. And this - I can tell you - is a<br>
>> bunch of experience ;-)<br>
>><br>
>> Any system we might make use of has it's strengths and weaknesses. Also,<br>
>> I do not have the feeling, that we in CC did fundamentally wrong<br>
>> selections in the past years, as every conference I can remember, was a<br>
>> success.<br>
>><br>
>> Till<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Am 07.06.19 um 00:18 schrieb Eli Adam:<br>
>>> Hi Jonathan,<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 11:44 AM Jonathan Moules<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:jonathan-lists@lightpear.com" target="_blank">jonathan-lists@lightpear.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>> Hi Steven,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Indeed, and I would then suggest taking all of that hard earned <br>
>>>> experience, knowledge, priorities, and weightings and putting them <br>
>>>> inside an objective, measurable framework where it is less <br>
>>>> susceptible to biases, both conscious and not.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> This would produce a much more open process, more in line with the <br>
>>>> O in OSGeo and the "open philosophy" part of the OSGeo Mission <br>
>>>> Statement. It also means experience and lessons learnt aren't lost <br>
>>>> when people leave the voting pool as with Cameron's input for <br>
>>>> instance.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Depending on the scoring metrics used, it would also allow for a <br>
>>>> more direct comparison between proposals. And as a bonus, the <br>
>>>> scoring/metrics being open means it's open to comment and feedback <br>
>>>> from everyone, meaning the process is now more "participatory <br>
>>>> community driven development" (again, straight from the <br>
>>>> one-sentence Mission Statement).<br>
>>>><br>
>>> I do find the questions from voting and non-voting members to be the<br>
>>> most useful part of the process. Generally the list seems very open<br>
>>> to sincere participation from everyone.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Cheers,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Jonathan<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 2019-06-06 19:18, Steven Feldman wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Jonathan<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Each member of the committee will bring their own priorities and <br>
>>>> experiences to the voting process.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> So for you the environmental considerations might be paramount <br>
>>>> while for someone else delivering a highly affordable delegate <br>
>>>> price may be their priority or another might be concerned about <br>
>>>> overall financial risk to OSGeo and someone else might be very <br>
>>>> focussed on diversity. We each have a different set of criteria and <br>
>>>> we also apply different levels of importance to those criteria.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> The current system allows each voter to apply their own criteria <br>
>>>> and weightings and to select the proposal that they think best, the <br>
>>>> majority vote then wins. I know when I vote I usually have a good <br>
>>>> feeling for one of the proposals based on a mix of factors, you <br>
>>>> could say that was unconscious bias, I would say it was a <br>
>>>> combination of instinct and experience<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> cheers<br>
>>>> ______<br>
>>>> Steven<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Unusual maps in strange places - <a href="http://mappery.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">mappery.org</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 6 Jun 2019, at 17:55, Jonathan Moules <br>
>>>> <<a href="mailto:jonathan-lists@lightpear.com" target="_blank">jonathan-lists@lightpear.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Hi List,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Following the protracted discussion about voters in the parallel <br>
>>>> thread it occurs to me that it's begging the question that voting <br>
>>>> is good.<br>
>>>><br>
>>> I'm not quite sure which thread you mean but yes, there have been many<br>
>>> voters/voting/etc discussions on this list and others. A recent<br>
>>> thread that I started was here,<br>
>>> <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2018-December/005036.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2018-December/005036.html</a> <br>
>>><br>
>>> I didn't hear many viable suggestions for different methods from that<br>
>>> thread. I'd like to hear more. I'd particularly like to hear Paul's<br>
>>> thoughts that he warned would be the result of an entire day of<br>
>>> thinking! (or because he has 2-3 iterations of experience of starting<br>
>>> conferences like this)<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Why exactly do we have voting for this? Surely the better and (far) <br>
>>>> less subjective option is to an objective scoring system by which <br>
>>>> to measure the quality of the submissions? There's still element of <br>
>>>> subjectivity of course ("is this answer a 6/10 or a 7/10?"), but <br>
>>>> it's largely objective, measurable, and transparent.<br>
>>>><br>
>>> This raises a good question, "why are we voting?" Historically, we<br>
>>> voted because selecting FOSS4G was key to OSGeo's financial future.<br>
>>> This is still the case (more detailed in the referenced thread) but<br>
>>> overwhelmingly we are selecting between multiple nearly equivalent<br>
>>> high quality options.<br>
>>><br>
>>> While your proposal is perhaps an improvement (to formality and<br>
>>> openness) to the existing voting, it is still substantially the same<br>
>>> thing and I don't see the point of this method any more than our<br>
>>> existing method. We can vote like we do now and more or less<br>
>>> arbitrarily select one very good proposal over another very good<br>
>>> proposal. Or we can go through a systematic open scoring method and<br>
>>> score one very good proposal 92/100 and the other very good proposal<br>
>>> 93/100; that seems like an equally arbitrary selection method to me.<br>
>>> In the case of very good proposals, the selection method does not<br>
>>> matter since the result is the same (very good proposal meeting all<br>
>>> the criteria and leading to a very successful conference and sound<br>
>>> finances). We could flip a coin or draw from a hat.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> As far as I can tell from the transparency in the current voting <br>
>>>> (i.e., none) and reading the proposals (half of which usually reads <br>
>>>> like a tourist brochure), votes could easily currently be getting <br>
>>>> cast via "I want to go on holiday there next year". And while I'm <br>
>>>> not suggesting that's actually happening intentionally, it's almost <br>
>>>> certainly going to be a subconscious bias in the current process.<br>
>>>><br>
>>> As far as I can tell (i.e. also none), "where I want to go on<br>
>>> vacation" is the most valid criteria that we have currently as the<br>
>>> substantive criteria in both cases are so excellent and near<br>
>>> equivalent.<br>
>>><br>
>>> (The other) Maria wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:50 AM María Arias de Reyna <br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:delawen@gmail.com" target="_blank">delawen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>> Hi,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I also think this is a problem. Choosing the foss4g venue is one of <br>
>>>> the most relevant tasks of OSGeo because it decides where and how <br>
>>>> the community is going to grow that year.<br>
>>> Geography of past conferences is certainly one criteria that I use,<br>
>>> wanting to bring OSGeo and FOSS4G to new areas. Other than<br>
>>> geography*, I've not found many valid criteria to vote on. I've not<br>
>>> heard many proposals either. * this is again in the case of multiple<br>
>>> near equivalent high quality proposals. In the case of proposals that<br>
>>> don't meet the important criteria, then it is an easy decision but<br>
>>> that is not the situation we usually find ourselves in. So in my<br>
>>> opinion, we mostly have one valid (but rather weak) criteria for<br>
>>> evaluation. That's why I want to hear more criteria or even better<br>
>>> new selection methods entirely.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best regards, Eli<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> Cheers,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Jonathan<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 2019-06-05 08:07, Till Adams wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Dear CC!<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for <br>
>>>> 2021.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I added this WIKI page here:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <a href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for<br>
>>>> other errors.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them <br>
>>>> to you.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Have a great day!<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Till<br>
>>>><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
><br>
><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Cameron Shorter<br>
Technology Demystifier<br>
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant<br>
<br>
M +61 (0) 419 142 254<br>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></blockquote></div></div>
</div></div>