<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>+1 for accepting the nomination of Gerald. I organise a local low cost (less than 100 euro fee) conference with more than 400 people and I can say that you learn a lot also from these "small" conferences. </div>
<div>Best regards </div>
<div>Maria </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="x_composer_signature">
<div dir="auto" style="font-size:88%; color:#364f67">Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-------- Messaggio originale --------<br>
Da: Till Adams <till.adams@fossgis.de> <br>
Data: 23/01/18 12:33 (GMT+01:00) <br>
A: conference <conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org> <br>
Oggetto: [OSGeo-Conf] some decisions in the pipe <br>
<br>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi Conference comittee,<br>
<br>
this is a general reminder on some decisions/discussions, that I have on<br>
my list we have to talk about in the following weeks. This email serves<br>
just as a general list-up with the hope, that you'll find some time to<br>
think about some of my issues. If you have your own things to bring in,<br>
feel free to share!<br>
<br>
I will list these points as seperate issues below and would be happy if<br>
we start a discussion:<br>
<br>
1. Voting Members<br>
<br>
For the last RfP, where we nominated Bucharest as venue for the 2019<br>
conference, we had a weak quorum, because quite some members did not<br>
vote. I sent out personal emails to the non-voters and received feedback<br>
from 3 of the 5 non-voters. These 3 excused themselves, they had reasons<br>
and they are willing to stay on board and that makes me happy.<br>
<br>
Leads me to the question, that I still did not get any feedback from the<br>
other 2. Now it's already some weeks ago that I contacted them,<br>
including a remembering mail.<br>
I don't know if we have an official trial to rule out people and<br>
personnally I wouldn't like to do that, because I know at least one of<br>
the 2 personally.<br>
On the other side, we can't be sure, that they will appear back once<br>
upon a time. Not re-appearing means that we have to fear more weak<br>
quorums in the future.<br>
<br>
Issue 1: How do we act here?<br>
<br>
This directly leads me to question 2: I will nominate Guido Stein and<br>
Michael Terner as new members for the CC later. I think as former chairs<br>
of a successful global FOSS4G conference, it is without question clear,<br>
that we need them as new members in CC. Also there was a request of<br>
Gerald Fenoy back this summer, where he asked for participation as member.<br>
I am little unsure here, because I fear, that we will have a huge CC<br>
within a few years, when we also nominate all past chairs of regional<br>
events. In my eyes (without rating!!!) organizing a regional event is a<br>
cmletely different game than having a global FOSS4G. And our job is to<br>
vote on proposals for global conferences venues. On the other side, of<br>
course, having some more active members inside CC wouldn't be the badest<br>
idea.<br>
<br>
Issue 2: Accept nomination of Gerald Fenoy (and potential other regional<br>
chairs?) ?<br>
<br>
<br>
2. Voting process<br>
We discussed to alter the voting process, so that for step 1 (LOI<br>
acceptance) of the RfP 2019 we had this new "thumbs up"/"thumbs down"<br>
vote. I will soon call for a vote, whether we want to keep this<br>
procedure or go back to the old "one vote per member" also for step 1.<br>
<br>
<br>
3. Bid process<br>
I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing<br>
the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we<br>
gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).<br>
I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it<br>
would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have<br>
the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a<br>
marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this<br>
happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put<br>
one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue<br>
soon as well.<br>
<br>
<br>
So far, have a nice day!<br>
<br>
Till<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>