So I'll add a little to elaborate a bit on the process, and a few of the other topics that have come up...
The way we vote is, each member of HO ranks their top 5 bids in order. We then scored those votes (5 points for a 1st preference, 4 points for a 2nd, etc.). After that stage there were 3 clear leading bids. We then had a fairly long discussion about the merits of those specific bids: the proposals, the applicants, the impact on other teams, the overall benefit to the league. When we still were unresolved we solicited the views of an Mav who's someone impartial of the bids, with a ton of experience, sound judgement and the interests of the league at heart. It's also good to get someone to look at them with a clean pair of eyes who hasn't been part of the discussion leading up to that. As a group we were I think largely leaning towards the bids that were ultimately chosen (and they had been the top two in that first round of voting) but it was good to get a little more validation.
We don't have a rigid weighting or guidelines for how we make our selections or vote, it's at the discretion of each member of HO to choose what they think is important, so I'll only speak for myself here. Someone asked if we would publish the full list of bids - personally I'm not sure it's our place to out people's failed bids if they've chosen to keep them private. There were people with good experience and high character (comparable to the final 3 bids) who I ranked lower because their written proposals were weaker in my opinion. There was also a bid from a relatively inexperienced pair that scored quite well in the initial votes but it would have been a very big step up for them with a lot of unknowns for us.
I viewed ISFL GMing experience as a positive in a bid (I do find it a bit weird people view this as a negative), but it wasn't something that I weighted much more than DSFL GMing experience. I will say not all ISFL GMs have the same roles or responsibilities. Yes Woelkers and Dewalt were both ISFL GMs but for very different tenures, with different partners, and different responsibilities. While they are the names people will recognise first, they were also just half of their respective bids and I think it's unfair on BWest and High to ignore them and their roles.
In addition I do view Expansion GMing as a bigger responsibility than ISFL GMing. I agree with Spec's point that the technical aspects (scouting, making picks, testing, managing cap and budget, submitting depth charts, etc.) are all learnable skills that most smart, reliable people can learn relatively quickly and mistakes are fixable. I'm a big believer in the importance of cultures in groups, and that once a culture becomes established it can be quite hard to undo. You see organisations which have a complete turnover of people but the culture persists because it's bigger and deeper than the just the individuals. That is one area where I would gave additional weight to people more experience, tried and tested around the league.
The way we vote is, each member of HO ranks their top 5 bids in order. We then scored those votes (5 points for a 1st preference, 4 points for a 2nd, etc.). After that stage there were 3 clear leading bids. We then had a fairly long discussion about the merits of those specific bids: the proposals, the applicants, the impact on other teams, the overall benefit to the league. When we still were unresolved we solicited the views of an Mav who's someone impartial of the bids, with a ton of experience, sound judgement and the interests of the league at heart. It's also good to get someone to look at them with a clean pair of eyes who hasn't been part of the discussion leading up to that. As a group we were I think largely leaning towards the bids that were ultimately chosen (and they had been the top two in that first round of voting) but it was good to get a little more validation.
We don't have a rigid weighting or guidelines for how we make our selections or vote, it's at the discretion of each member of HO to choose what they think is important, so I'll only speak for myself here. Someone asked if we would publish the full list of bids - personally I'm not sure it's our place to out people's failed bids if they've chosen to keep them private. There were people with good experience and high character (comparable to the final 3 bids) who I ranked lower because their written proposals were weaker in my opinion. There was also a bid from a relatively inexperienced pair that scored quite well in the initial votes but it would have been a very big step up for them with a lot of unknowns for us.
I viewed ISFL GMing experience as a positive in a bid (I do find it a bit weird people view this as a negative), but it wasn't something that I weighted much more than DSFL GMing experience. I will say not all ISFL GMs have the same roles or responsibilities. Yes Woelkers and Dewalt were both ISFL GMs but for very different tenures, with different partners, and different responsibilities. While they are the names people will recognise first, they were also just half of their respective bids and I think it's unfair on BWest and High to ignore them and their roles.
In addition I do view Expansion GMing as a bigger responsibility than ISFL GMing. I agree with Spec's point that the technical aspects (scouting, making picks, testing, managing cap and budget, submitting depth charts, etc.) are all learnable skills that most smart, reliable people can learn relatively quickly and mistakes are fixable. I'm a big believer in the importance of cultures in groups, and that once a culture becomes established it can be quite hard to undo. You see organisations which have a complete turnover of people but the culture persists because it's bigger and deeper than the just the individuals. That is one area where I would gave additional weight to people more experience, tried and tested around the league.
![[Image: TintedWaryEsok-size_restricted.gif]](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/TintedWaryEsok-size_restricted.gif)
