Thank you Jeff, Jody and Marc for explaining the rigour you have
followed.
My vote is +1, which is in line with my trust in the people involved
and their prior track record, the process set up, and description of
how it was followed.
Cameron
On 9/3/17 12:36 pm, Jody Garnett wrote:
We may want a seperate thread for this one Cameron; should we take
your response as a +0 
+1 - Get Interactive - treated us (and this project) with respect,
handling their communication seriously demonstrating a great work
ethic in both their EOI and RFP responses. They were not the most
visually impressive response; but they more than made up for this
with communication and consideration.
It has been a bit of whirlwind so I am trying to remember what I
did:
- Took part in the EOI creation, rewriting some sections around how
projects are presented (to make it less confusing between osgeo
projects, community projects and incubation)
- Reviewed the EOI responses and attended some discussion meetings;
as part of this meeting I made some notes capturing the pros and
cons of the responses, and voted for the four short-listed
organizations.
- Helped craft the "EOI response" letters sent out to short listed
firms, using the notes above to both encourage respondents and to
highlight areas where the committee wanted more information
- Quickly reviewed the proposals with Helena (at a local GIS
conference). This review formed the core of a comparison between
proposals ("EOI/RFP Comments and Feedback" document), that was added
to be Antia, Jeffrey, Marc and others on both the marketing and
board lists.
- Tried to make a "Comparison RFP" spreadsheet of the responses
(wanted to double check the proposals for any variances - such as
cutting scope from their financials and not noting it as a
variance). This did not prove super useful; but the high level
comparison of costs helped me at least.
- Attended a meeting to select a firm, the "EOI/RFP Comments and
Feedback" document was updated over the course of the meeting to
help guide negotiations. Specifically we captured for each firm
a) what would be need from the firm? _example demonstrate an
understanding of scope_
b) what would be needed internally from OSGeo? _example volunteers
in the same timezone_
c) what questions do we have for negotiation? example: _Content
migration appears unrealistic - can you explain your approach._
- Helped "proposal response letters" to the two firms selected for
Q&A interview - questions composed from the above document.
- I was only able to attend on of the Q&A interviews; I was quite
impressed by the selected firms questions for OSGeo, and work ethic
they displayed in their EOI and RFP. I also appreciated Jeffrey and
Marc's representation of OSGeo and our interests.
- I was able to talk to Marc about the second meeting, while he got
answers to the above questions (thanks Marc). The firm in question
did not match Get Interactive for being prepared.
Over the course of the above I did my best to keep osgeo board in
the loop; sending the above notes and documents osgeo-priv, and
highlighting the correspondence as they were saved into dropbox. I
think I also managed to email discuss@osgeo.org and ask for more
volunteers to take part
If anyone on the marketing committee (or osgeo board) needs a copy
of the notes referenced above give me a shout. Doing this
commercial-in-confidence stuff really conflicts with our "open all
the things" mantra at OSGeo.
--
Jody Garnett
On 8 March 2017 at 15:46, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you to all who have put in a significant effort in pushing
through on this website re-branding activity.
For transparency, and to demonstrate the rigour that has been
applied to this process, could I please ask each person who has been
involved to explain the depth of your involvement in your
assessment, and why you agree with this motion (or not). I will then
vote based on my trust of the process and my trust that the
individuals involved have followed the process.
To start:
* I reviewed the RFQ that was developed and sent out, along with the
proposed process. I was impressed with the professionalism of both.
I am familiar with the individuals involved with this selection
process, and have been impressed over the years with their clear
thinking, ability to suggest good ideas, their follow through on
making things happen and professionalism. Assuming they confirm that
they have continued to be thorough in their process, and confident
in their selection, I shall back their decision.
Warm regards, Cameron
On 09-Mar-17 10:08 AM, Marc VLOEMANS wrote:
Dear Marketing List,
Thanks to the unrelenting energy of the Marketing Committee en
members of the Board, I have the pleasureof asking you for approval
of our choice of agency to conduct the Rebranding and Website
Project for OSGeo: GetInteractive (for examples of their previous
work see www.getinteractive.nl [5])
I herewith ask you formally to approve the choice for GetInteractive
as the agency that will execute the Rebranding and Website Project
as previously described in the EoI and RFP. Please do so before
Saturday 12.00 noon CET. This allows the committee to draft the
contract and collect Board signature in order to have the agency
start the project in time.
Some back ground on the process:
- we cast our Call for Expression of Interest as widely as our
network and channels allowed
- we received 4 serious EoI's, which all were invited to send in a
proposal
- of these, 2 were shortlisted based on price and project scope
- GetInteractive was chosen as the winner, based on critical items
such as:
pricing, experience with community-sites, quality of reference
projects, comprehensiveness of their proposals, user-friendliness
and technical specifications of proposed CMS, their experience with
open source, realisme of planning and efforts, demonstrated
professionalism in the EoI/RFP process and such.
We have 'happily' drawn upon Jeffrey's particular experience in the
CMS-field and he has volunteered to manage the project on our
behalf. Jody's eye for detail and process has kept us on track as
the overall planning needed to be met. Therefore I feel we have
achieved the best value for our money and can safely enter the next
stage in the project.
Again, I wish to thank all involved in a process that has been
executed meticulously but (thankfully) fast enough to have our
revamped brand and website in place well before FOSS4G2017 to
immediately benefit from it.
Kind regards,
Marc Vloemans
Mobile +31(0)651 844262
LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/marcvloemans [6]
Twitter: x.com [7]
Marc Vloemans presentations | SlideShare [8]
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
Marketing Info Page [1]
--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager, Jirotech,
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 8099 9000 [2], M +61 419 142 254 [3], W www.jirotech.com [4]
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing
list Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
Marketing Info Page [1]
