[OSGeo-Conf] TGP's in 2019

Tue Feb 12 10:55:26 PST 2019

As one of the people who designed / ran the 2014 travel grant program --
it's great to see this continuing as a part of conferences going forward.

re: Cameron's comments -- I'd submit that the "diversity gap" is present in
all profiles of people, and that it's important to consider both the work
being done ("lone hacker") or the future leading (e.g. local FOSS4G),  and
also *who* is doing the work / who is doing the leading, as that helps
shape the future community both at the conference and at home.

And, again -- having run one of these, I know it's a complex web of
decisions / factors. Thank you all for continuing to put time, funds, and
thought behind making FOSS4G more accessible, and the OSGeo community
stronger (diversity = strength).

cheers
-k.bott

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:34 AM Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Till, I provided feedback into the Google Docs version (now more recent
> than the wiki):
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit
>
> I now only have read access so can't show history and show diff between
> versions. (Hopefully you can).
>
> Re travel grant recipients, I think there are a few different profiles of
> people we want to attract:
>
> 1. People who will be inspired to go back into their communities and
> become agents of change, after they have connected with like minded people
> at foss4g. (Maybe by setting up a local or regional FOSS4G).
>
> 2. "The lone hacker" - who has been doing amazing stuff by themselves, and
> who we can bring to foss4g to meet the rest of their team, and who might be
> able to inspire others.
>
> 3. The diversity gap person. Helping balance out power imbalances by
> helping to empower the less empowered groups.
>
> 4. ... and probably more ...
>
> We should be considering the "Return on Investment" for each of these
> different criteria, for each person we consider. As mentioned by Adam, each
> region has different profiles for this "Return on Investment" equation
> which we should respect and support.
> On 12/2/19 6:39 pm, Till Adams wrote:
>
> Dear list!
>
> Great to get so much feedback - that was my intention ...;-). OSGeo's CC
> is alive!
>
> I will try to figure out a draft based on all the comments today or
> tomorrow. Maybe we decouple the call for TGP and the decision process. We
> can discuss the 2nd and then setup a chapter on the WIKI.
>
> Till
>
>
>
> Am 11.02.19 um 23:42 schrieb Eli Adam:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 1:31 PM adam steer <adam.d.steer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Conference dev folks
>>
>> I wrote and deleted a long post which said effectively +1 to Mark’s
>> comments. The very short version is that air travel is pretty much the only
>> way to get around much of Oceania, and as such needs to be an option
>> (cruise ships are another, but very dirty also).
>>
>
> +1 to a lot of what Mark said.  Mark (and the Dar LOC) certainly set a
> high standard for what the TGP can be.  I was certainly glad to help a
> little bit on that process (and seeing how much the TGP had grown since
> some of our efforts in PDX was humbling - nice work).  But again these are
> criteria that will be set by the LOC running that individual TGP.
>
>
>> I’m struggling a little with Eli’s idea of funding based on expected
>> conference attendance. Again, in Oceania conferences might not be huge but
>> TGP support costs are high. I’d preference assessment on a case by case
>> basis (ie the conference LOC puts up a proposal, it is assessed - but
>> proposals all have to be submitted in the open), with maybe some work to
>> develop guidelines around ‘if you live in region X, plan around cost Y per
>> TGP funded attendee’. Of course, this is prima facie unfair because it’s a
>> lot cheaper to support a TGP attendee in Tanzania than it is in Oceania.
>> Food for thought/further discussion.
>>
>
> My suggestion was intended as a general starting guideline and not
> intended as rigid.
>
> Oceania (or other regions) can certainly make their case for why their
> portion should be multiplied by Z.
>
> Also, different regions may be able to support a different number of TGP
> recipients based on various factors.  I've made cases for TGP recipients
> very near (and costing very little) as well as very distant with poor
> transportation connectivity (and costing a sizable portion of the total TGP
> but there were not going to be closer/easier FOSS4G events for them in the
> near future, but maybe they would be the seed that grows FOSS4G there).
>
> Hopefully we take a reasonable approach that is open to reason, revision,
> and flexibility and gets better over time.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
>
>>
>> …and of course, a fine rebuttal would be ‘work harder on
>> sponsorship/fundraising! There’s money in the region, extract it!'
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing listConference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing listConference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Technology Demystifier
> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>
> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20190212/36446527/attachment-0001.html>