[OSGeo-Conf] Draft RfP FOSS4G2022
Peter Batty
peter at ebatty.com
Wed Nov 18 09:50:00 PST 2020
I think there is merit in Steven's suggestion of opening the call to both
NA and EU. I think there is a possibility we may get fewer proposals
than usual as potential organizers may see more risks than there were in
pre-Covid days, and opening it to both would mitigate this to some degree.
I don't see much downside to doing this.
Cheers,
Peter.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:39 AM adams at osgeo.org <adams at osgeo.org> wrote:
> Dear CC,
>
> looks like we got stuck here somehow. Maybe we as CC should have a clear
> decision first on whether we tzhink that we should have
>
> 22 as a
>
> - "NA" year
> - "EU" year
> - open the call for both
>
> before we involve the board. I wil lsend an email to the board and keep
> them updated in our discussion.
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 16.11.20 um 15:15 schrieb Mark Iliffe:
> > In the interest of time, happy to defer and strongly support the broader
> > Conference Committee. To clarify, I too like the idea of remaining in
> > cycle, but wish for the potential economic impact to be considered a bit
> > more. I'd propose the co-chairs and/or Till summarises the pertinent
> > points for the board's decision. Regardless of what happens, I strongly
> > urge the OSGeo to discuss and note the decision for the record.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 06:07, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de
> > <mailto:till.adams at fossgis.de>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree with Eli. I see the point, that of course the turn for NA
> might
> > be long - on the other side, I know at least about one team from
> europe,
> > that already prepare their bid for 2022 since a year now.
> >
> > Nevertheless I like the idea of keeping our cycle, as the above might
> > also be the case for other potential bidders.
> >
> > If we discuss this or vote on that point, I would suggest to hurry
> up,
> > as we are already little late with our call or 2022.
> >
> > Regards, Till
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 13.11.20 um 20:32 schrieb Eli Adam:
> > > Skipping a year means that it will be longer to return to *some*
> > > region. Sticking with the existing rotation keeps things going the
> > > same and returns the rotation back to "normal" soonest.
> > >
> > > I slightly favor keeping 22 a Europe year, 23 a NA year, and 24 an
> > > Other Regions year. I'm open to other rotations too, particularly
> if
> > > someone has a good argument for it or strong feelings. If finances
> > > require, skipping Other Regions in 24 would make the most sense
> but we
> > > are a long ways away from that decision.
> > >
> > > Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email? Plan a meeting to
> > > discuss and decide? Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?
> Just
> > > let things continue on the same path and without having taken
> action
> > > otherwise, the same rotation continues?
> > >
> > > Best regards, Eli
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Steven Feldman
> > <shfeldman at gmail.com <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >> I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we
> > consider opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers
> > the best proposal?
> > >> ______
> > >> Steven
> > >>
> > >> Unusual maps in strange places - mappery.org <http://mappery.org
> >
> > >>
> > >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
> > >>
> > >> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com
> > <mailto:peter at ebatty.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't
> > following the mailing list closely these days.
> > >>
> > >> He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that
> > they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He
> > said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned
> > that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.
> > >>
> > >> So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still
> > have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't
> > have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the
> > question had been discussed.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Peter.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de
> > <mailto:till.adams at fossgis.de>> wrote:
> > >>> Dear Peter,
> > >>>
> > >>> as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting
> > we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on
> > keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in
> Europe.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they
> > feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.
> > >>>
> > >>> I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we
> > will have on friday.
> > >>>
> > >>> Till
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the
> > conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there
> > were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North
> > America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and
> > also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary
> > team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to
> > award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to
> > submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary
> > team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably
> > due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I
> > missed any subsequent discussion on this front.
> > >>>
> > >>> Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the
> > right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't
> > want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022
> > should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA
> > events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between
> > NA events, 3 years between European events).
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Peter.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams
> > <till.adams at fossgis.de <mailto:till.adams at fossgis.de>> wrote:
> > >>>> Hi Vasile,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to
> > have a
> > >>>> WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding
> > process,
> > >>>> like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process
> > open and
> > >>>> transparent.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Till
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
> > >>>>> Dear CC members,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting
> > for a
> > >>>>> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that
> the
> > >>>>> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason
> > we kept
> > >>>>> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some
> > decisions
> > >>>>> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on
> > the new
> > >>>>> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at
> the
> > >>>>> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
> > >>>>> additions/changes from the last document editions are
> > highlighted in orange.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Warm regards,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
> > >>>>> CC Co-chairs
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
> > >>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> > >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Conference_dev mailing list
> > >>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> > >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Conference_dev mailing list
> > >>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> > >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Conference_dev mailing list
> > >> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> > >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Conference_dev mailing list
> > >> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> > >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Conference_dev mailing list
> > > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> > > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201118/4257a2e5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list