[OSGeo-Conf] [OSGeo-Discuss] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some continuity of organization and management
michael terner
ternergeo at gmail.com
Sun Feb 20 11:11:21 PST 2022
It is great to see this vibrant, and IMHO, *crucial* discussion play out.
In reading the responses, I don't think there's much of a difference
between option 1 and option 2. Eli framed options 2 as: "Change the FOSS4G
organizing structure to something else (discussion of what we change it to
can come later if people want to pursue this)." To me, and many other
voters (even those who cast their votes differently), there was never any
assumption that the LOC's be abolished or that having lots of local
involvement was super important for providing a good, unique conference
experience, and also for having more people, more involved in OSGeo. What
we're discussing is *some kind of change*, not fully starting anew.
I think Paul summarized the dueling challenges/benefits of having more, or
less, centralization. More overall efficiency; less volunteer burnout and
avoidance of the real risks that LOC's face and that COVID exposed. But one
of his phrases stands out, and seems presently relevant: the "...supply of
those people, is finite" (i.e., "those people" being volunteers to wholly
own a Global FOSS4G). Indeed, what might we do if a 2023 proposal does not
get submitted, in spite of extending the deadline? Here in North America,
we have yet to organize even a regional NorthAM conference for either 2022,
or 2023.
To me, and many others there are some great ideas for a hybrid approach,
and for OSGeo to have a bit more skin in the game financially (as Steven
suggested). Also, many agree that some good resources should be offered to
LOCs so they don't have to reinvent the wheel. One key goal would be to
make it easier, and less risky for LOC's to *submit a proposal* to host and
put on the Conference. Here's my list of things OSGeo could do (mostly
echoing things that others have mentioned earlier):
- *Financial Involvement by OSGeo *
- Sharing the risk beyond providing advances
- Active *work* to help insure the financial health of the conference
- Human being from OSGeo paid to oversee the process and help/mentor
LOCs
- It is OSGeo's largest fundraiser, and as such OSGeo should
actively invest in success (and share more of the risk)
- *Shared Systems*
- Call for papers and program submittal review
- Community voting
- Registration
- Website platform/framework
- Conference Mobile App
- Partnering/technical approach for online video, and archiving when
it is needed/required
- This can be a very large cost
- Etc.
- *Sponsorship*
- Outreach to previous/recurring and global sponsors, including
maintaining "the list" of who to communicate with
- Coordination, and guidance to LOCs for recruiting new local
sponsors, and being introduced to global sponsors
With these things covered, there is still *plenty *of work to be done and
unique value to add:
- *Setting the vision*
- *Setting the program*
- *Promoting the conference to ensure strong attendance*
- The hosting region generally supplies the large majority of
attendees
- *Generating new in-region sponsors*
- *Coordinating with the OSGeo team*
- *Involvement with all the systems*
- The systems may be chosen, but it is the local team that develops
website content; identifies program tracks; *uses* the registration
system on a daily basis; etc. But, the team doesn't have to go
through the
effort and angst of selecting and, if necessary, paying for those systems.
- *Recruiting and activating local volunteers to help make the
conference run and be successful*
I believe this discussion has been very productive and it will be
interesting to see what the next steps are now that it appears that a
strong quorum has chimed in.
MT
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 2:09 PM Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>
wrote:
> I am, naturally of two minds about this.
>
> As Sanghee says, the act of pulling together a local conference can be one
> that draws together people from multiple parts of the local geo ecosystem,
> makes new connections that might never be made. Gathering up public,
> private, and NGO sponsors in your local area, and having them all
> experience the FOSS4G thing, something they might not have otherwise gotten
> to be a part of... it requires a local commitment, and local connections,
> to make it happen.
>
> Moving to a centralized system, where the locale is primarily a source of
> a venue, an interesting city and some novel culinary options, loses a lot
> of that. I appreciated the turn-key aspect of FOSS4G-NA when LocationTech
> was carrying the organizing load, but the event itself became denatured
> somehow. It lacked the organic connections it had when it was (earlier) in
> Minnesota or (later) in San Diego.
>
> There will be a loss.
>
> On the other hand (of course), this doesn't come for free. The very
> uniqueness and organicness flows from the "figuring things out on the fly
> and making the connections needed" that local organizers go through. The
> very thing that provides the magic spark, burns them down to the ground.
>
> And the supply of those people, is finite. We've gotten on a long time (at
> least 5 years longer than I would predicted!) with people continuing to
> step up and volunteer for the load. It may be that Covid and the "virtual
> conference" has been what finally killed the supply of enthusiasm. I know
> myself that part of the "fun" of volunteering for the grind was knowing the
> world was going to come to town. When the world is just "dialing in", the
> sense of reward is (I think) a lot lower for organizers. One of the
> ego-gratifying aspects of organizing the conference is being able to see
> your local contacts go "whoa, this is really real, I thought you were
> always just blowing smoke" as they wander through a hall full of 1000 open
> source geospatial advocates.
>
> Anyways, lots of words to no great conclusion. I think a central
> organization would be more "sustainable" but potentially deterimental to
> the ethos of the thing. Also, very very very very dependent on finding the
> right resource to actually do the centralized work. It could also be a
> disaster in the wrong hands and kill the whole thing dead forever.
>
> ATB,
> P
>
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:58 AM Gavin Fleming <gavin at kartoza.com> wrote:
> I support reassessing the FOSS4G modus operandi to ensure it stays fresh
> and relevant to the OSGeo communities and markets and keeps up to date with
> changing realities. Indeed it should be open to evolving from year to year.
>
> I think the essence of FOSS4G moving around the world and being a ‘local
> yet global’ event shouldn’t be lost.
>
> Perhaps more elements of conference organisation could be centralised to
> minimise the burden on the LOC and for continuity. I think Steven stepping
> up to assist with sponsorship support for a few years now is an example of
> that. I would say the web site / digital platform is another element that
> is a huge effort to re-imagine and reimplement each year, although when it
> was attempted before (for 2008) it was far from ideal, so it would have to
> be considered carefully.
>
> There will always be substantial effort involved at the local level, which
> for most LOC members is probably a once-off yet very gratifying labour of
> love.
>
> As far as the conference committee goes, I think it’s essential to retain
> as many past chairs / LOC members as are willing, but that membership
> should be supplemented by any wiling CM.
>
> regards
>
> Gavin
>
> On 08 Feb 2022, at 23:25, Bruce Bannerman via Discuss <
> discuss at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
> Well said Sanghee.
>
> As a former member of the LOC for FOSS4G-2009 I agree with the local
> community development argument, though in our case it led to a lot of
> burn-out.
>
> There is also the practicality of finding a conference organiser that can
> operate effectively anywhere in the world.
>
> Should the alternate approach go through, significant thought also needs
> to go into the procurement process to avoid the very real potential for
> corruption.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Bruce
>
> On 9 Feb 2022, at 01:28, 신상희 via Discuss <discuss at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I prefer option 1.
>
> If this poll was asked just after FOSS4G Seoul 2015, I would have selected
> option 2 without any hesitations.
>
> However I now realize that I, LOC members, and local community had learned
> a lot by going through the difficulties of preparing the event altogether.
> That experience was very unique, invaluable and is now one of driving force
> of vibrant activity of OSGeo Korean chapter. Community driven FOSS4G with
> help from PCO is not so bad model, I think.
>
> Kind regards,
> 신상희
> ---
> Shin, Sanghee
> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
> www.gaia3d.com
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "michael terner" <ternergeo at gmail.com>
> To: "Steven Feldman" <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> Cc: "OSGeo-Conf" <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>; "OSGeo Discussions" <
> discuss at lists.osgeo.org>; "Massimiliano Cannata" <
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>; "Eli Adam" <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
> Sent: 2022-02-06 오전 6:09:42
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some
> continuity of organization and management
>
> +2 for considering change
>
> There's definitely room to *consider* continual improvements for the
> conference process, as the world, and our community has evolved
> considerably over the last few years. No easy solutions, but lots to
> think about.
>
> Eli starting this thread with an "informal poll" makes complete sense. The
> Committee is simply doing it's job of helping the Board to manage and
> promote the conference activity. We don't get to make decisions by
> ourselves, but generating ideas is certainly part of the mandate. And, as
> others have said, if the board disagrees with a proposal/idea, they do not
> have to approve it.
>
> MT
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022, 6:02 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +2 from me
>>
>> Everyone is welcome to participate in the conversation about changes to
>> the organisation of FOSS4G, then the Conference Ctee should vote and make a
>> recommendation (or recommendations) to the Board and the Board should
>> decide.
>>
>> Our organisational model is that the charter members elect the board and
>> the board then makes decisions on their behalf, if CM’s don’t agree with
>> board decisions they have the option to vote in a new board, we do not have
>> a direct voting or referendum system where CM’s are consulted on individual
>> decisions.
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places - mappery.org
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>> newsletter
>>
>> On 4 Feb 2022, at 09:01, Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Maxi,
>> Thanks! I completely agree with those type of changes indeed. It makes
>> sense we have a list of scenario’s forward and have a vote on that by the
>> community.
>>
>> For what the membership of the conference committee is concerned, I left
>> simply because of the supposed/imposed barrier of not having been a
>> conference chair, although I didn’t agree with that at all. Didn’t feel
>> like fighting over it though. It would be better to make membership
>> voluntary just like other committees. Possibly approved by the board or
>> charter members.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jeroen
>>
>> <https://www.geocat.net/>
>> Jeroen Ticheler
>> Mobile: +31681286572
>> E-mail: jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net
>> https://www.geocat.net
>> Veenderweg 13
>> 6721 WD Bennekom
>> The Netherlands
>> Tel: +31318416664
>> On 4 Feb 2022, 09:02 +0100, Massimiliano Cannata <
>> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>, wrote:
>>
>> Dear Jeroen,
>> Thanks for your considerations.
>>
>> I wasn't proposing to extend the evaluation of proposals to the whole
>> community. I understand a dedicated committee should do this (even though I
>> believe a part of the evaluation of a proposal could be assigned by votes
>> of the community, maybe 10%?).
>>
>> My point is that decisions of changing the organisation of the FOSS4G
>> cannot be done without the involvement of the whole community. It's not
>> about changing the evaluation process, it's about deciding for example to
>> have a fixed location, to completely leave it to an external company, to
>> pay the committee members to do it, to have it online or in person, to
>> cancel the global and keep only to local conference...
>>
>> Another point is that so far there's the assumption that only organizer
>> of previous FOSS4G have the competence to understand technical matters.
>> That's quite aleatory and in no other committee there is such an entry
>> barrier... If you didn't play in NBA you cannot be a good coach? Can a
>> government self-elect his members? What about innovation, new ideas and
>> other experiences, or we're just close in our FOSS4G past events
>> experience... Because only if you run a global conference you have the
>> competence...
>>
>> Sorry to be long, and this is not personal at all, I just like being
>> inclusive and have empowered participatory approach..
>>
>> All the best,
>> Maxi
>>
>> Il gio 3 feb 2022, 17:04 Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net> ha
>> scritto:
>>
>>> Hi Maxi,
>>> Thanks for sharing your view on this. Although I sympathize with the
>>> idea of a whole community having a say in how conference locations is
>>> selected and organized, I’m not in favor of the process you propose.
>>> Reading LOI’s and full proposals takes a lot of time and voting a lot of
>>> thought and discussion. It really helps to have previous conference
>>> organizers on the committee as well. At the same time I also think the
>>> committee should be open to other members (I used to be a member long time
>>> ago while I never chaired a conference, and I don’t think that mattered
>>> honestly).
>>> Concluding, I think selecting a conference / proposal should be taken
>>> care of by the committee, not by all charter members or the whole
>>> community. Maybe the board or the charter members should decide for an
>>> elected committee similar to what we already do with the board elections.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jeroen
>>>
>>> <https://www.geocat.net/>
>>> Jeroen Ticheler
>>> Mobile: +31681286572
>>> E-mail: jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net
>>> https://www.geocat.net
>>> Veenderweg 13
>>> 6721 WD Bennekom
>>> The Netherlands
>>> Tel: +31318416664
>>> On 3 Feb 2022, 16:15 +0100, Massimiliano Cannata <
>>> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>, wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear conference community,
>>> why is the community left out from this decision / discussion?
>>>
>>> The FOSS4G conference is a property of OSGeo, and therefore of the
>>> community as a whole.
>>> The conference committee has not been elected so cannot decide in
>>> representation of the community.
>>>
>>> As an OPEN community I strongly believe that all the charter members (at
>>> least) should have a word or vote on such an important decision.
>>>
>>> I hope this message is not ignored..
>>>
>>> Maxi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Il giorno gio 3 feb 2022 alle ore 15:04 Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
>>> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Hi all (particularly voting committee members),
>>>>
>>>> The current FOSS4G structure has a new LOC every year starting more or
>>>> less from scratch (some things like mailing lists and seed money are passed
>>>> on). Over the years, many people have commented on the load of work this
>>>> creates for the LOC, the general inefficiency, the risk, and the burnout.
>>>>
>>>> If you consider yourself a voting member of the committee (
>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members),
>>>> please indicate your preference on this.
>>>>
>>>> This is an informal poll to see if the conference committee wants to:
>>>> 1. Keep it the way it is and not change anything
>>>> 2. Change the FOSS4G organizing structure to something else (discussion
>>>> of what we change it to can come later if people want to pursue this).
>>>>
>>>> As I've expressed several times, I prefer option 2, changing the FOSS4G
>>>> organizing structure.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your time and participation.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards, Eli
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Massimiliano Cannata*
>>> Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
>>> Responsabile settore Geomatica
>>>
>>> *Istituto scienze della Terra*
>>>
>>> Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
>>> Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
>>> Campus Mendrisio, Via Flora Ruchat-Roncati 15
>>> CH – 6850 Mendrisio
>>>
>>> Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14
>>> Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
>>> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
>>> *www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>*
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
--
Michael Terner
ternergeo at gmail.com
(M) 978-631-6602
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20220220/ad5d0fcd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list