[OSGeo-Conf] Firenze Full Proposal - tangential discussions

[Eli Adam]

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 2:21 AM María Arias de Reyna <delawen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:23 AM Luca Delucchi <lucadeluge at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I fully support this, I wrote a document shared with some members of
> > this committee and some of the board, now I share with all of you [0].
> > This is my idea, it can be improved and changed, it could be a
> > starting point for next call
>
> Regarding some of the ideas of the shared document:
>
> > Provide a system for CfP and Registration (maybe also streaming, a
> candidate is venueless.org) to be used also by local chapter and related
> conferences
>
> I completely support this. One of the goals of FOSS4G 2021 is to
> experiment with tools we can own and reuse later. Our experiment using
> Pretix, Pretalx and Venueless has upsides and downsides... but more
> upsides than downsides. And the downsides are things we can easily fix
> given proper time. Some of the issues were discovered "on the fly" so
> difficult to hotfix in production. But as said, nothing that can't be
> fixed for future editions and adapted to our special needs.
>

This is a great approach and aligns with the OSGeo mission.  The only hang
up is that LOCs have limited capability and when you have a LOC member who
is already well versed in another system it does make some sense to go that
route instead of finding someone to volunteer to learn a new system.  If we
can figure out some increased continuity this may not be relevant.


>
> I easily foresee I will be burn out when 2021 finishes, but I can help
> in deploying/customizing/maintaining that stack in the future (maybe
> at least give some hints to 2022 and being more active for 2023?). And
>

Yes, FOSS4G LOCs don't have a lot left after putting the event on.  Many of
us seem to fade away or change our focus a little or at least don't
volunteer for cumbersome difficult processes in the FOSS4G realm.  Making
changes that might change this a little could bring great rewards.


> if OSGeo as an entity reach an agreement with the developers behind
> those projects, maybe for hosting, maybe for co-developing features, I
> think that would be great because our goals are very similar. We are a
> perfect testing use case for them.
>

This is a good approach.  It does take time and effort.


>
> > The conference will be hybrid.
>
> Here I have serious doubts. It's true that the situation has improved
> a bit for online events since I wrote my initial analysis[1] but still
>

That write up hits it spot on.  Whether it is travel grant program
recipients or remote* attendees, I've always been opposed to  "second class
participants."


> a hybrid event will mean having two types of attendees. I have been
> for too long working on semi-remote initiatives to know that it is
> always better to be either fully online or fully face to face. Even if
> there is a team on the same office that use their own laptop for
> meetings to level the field, the moment they start interacting face to
> face it means the ones that are remote are in disadvantage. The
> frustration of being a remotee and trying to participate in a
> conversation from a laptop screen while the rest are talking face to
> face is... frustrating. Specially on heated conversations (people tend
> to forget you are there) which are one of the most attractive features
> of conferences: being able to have heated conversations on
> technologies and brainstorm the future.
>
> Unless we have very strongly in mind that remote attendees will be
> "readonly" and face to face attendees will be the only ones really
> interacting... I don't know, maybe I'm wrong but I still have to find
> some way of making the hybrid work. And I have tried for years on
> events with people that couldn't travel in person for different
> reasons. All of them had this "second class citizen" feeling at the
> end, no matter how much love and care we put into making them
> comfortable.
>

*this is the only type of "second class participant" that I support.  It is
clear from the beginning and expectations should align with results and not
leave a bad taste.



>
> The best "hybrid" approach I have seen is a normal FOSS4G pre-2020,
> where people travel there but you still have streaming services for
> those who couldn't/didn't want to travel. Which means remotees are
> "readonly" and they know it from the beginning, no false hopes of
> participating.
>

Yes, exactly.

Best regards, Eli


> Cheers and congrats on the proposal, Luca!
>
> [1] https://delawen.com/2020/10/are-online-events-the-new-normal/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210506/c51ee9eb/attachment-0001.html>