> Anyone can ask questions to the candidates.
Yes, they can (and yes, I have asked questions), but here's the thing:
The only people who actually matter are the people who vote. And we have
no idea what they vote (for the valid reason stated) or what their
criteria are for their vote (which is a problem). If the committee don't
read and/or care about the questions asked/answered then said
questions/answers are meaningless.
> The only two things that are not public are:
I disagree, the third thing that's not public, and by far the most
important, is the actual scoring criteria. Each committee member is a
black-box in this regard. Not only do we not find out *what* they voted
(fine), we also never know *why* they voted a specific way.
Did Buenos Aires win because:
* it had the shiniest brochure?
* it was cheapest?
* that's where the committee members wanted to go on holiday?
* nepotism?
* the region seemed like it'd benefit the most?
* they were feeling grumpy at the chair of the other RfP that day?
* they had the "best" bid?
... etc
Disclosure: I am definitely **NOT** stating those are the reasons it was
chosen!!! I'm highlighting them because the lack of transparency means
we can't know what the actual reasons were. Frankly, given the
absolutely huge list of cognitive biases that exist, there's a
reasonable chance that the voters aren't voting why they think they're
voting either. That's just the human condition; we're great at deceiving
ourselves and rationalisations (me included).
To work around this, with public sector contracts in the western world
you have a list of requirements and then all the bids are scored against
those requirements. The one with the highest score wins the contract.
*That* is transparent.
TL;DR: We don't know why the voters vote as they do. The public sector
solves this by requiring scoring of bids against a list of pre-published
requirements.
I hope that clears things up. I'm not in any way suggesting impropriety,
I'm highlighting we have no way of knowing there's no impropriety. Hence
my claim as to a lack of transparency; the votes are opaque.
Cheers,
Jonathan
On 2022-01-13 07:35, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:50 PM Jonathan Moules via Discuss
<discuss@lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
On the surface, this is a good idea, but unfortunately it has a fundamental
problem:
There are no "criteria for selection" of the conference beyond "the committee
members voted for this proposal". There's zero transparency in the process.
I can't let this serious accusation go unanswered.
All the process is done via public mailing lists. All the criteria is
published on the Request For Proposals. Anyone on the community can
review the RFP and propose changes to it. Anyone on the community can
read the proposals and interact with the candidatures.
The only two things that are not public are:
* Confidentiality issues with the proposals. For example sometimes
providers give you huge discounts in exchange of not making that
discount public. So you can't show the budget publicly, unless you are
willing to not use the discount.
* What each member of the committee votes. And this is to ensure they
can freely vote without fearing consequences.
Which are two very reasonable exceptions.
Anyone can ask questions to the candidates. If I am right, you
yourself have been very active on this process for the past years.
Were you not the one that asked what a GeoChica is or am I confusing
you with some other Jonathan? If I am confusing you with some other
Jonathan, my mistake. Maybe you are not aware of the transparency of
the process.
The process is transparent and public except on those two exceptions
that warrantee the process is going to be safe.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
