[OSGeo-Conf] Event rotation
Seven (aka Arnulf)
seven at arnulf.us
Tue Jul 12 10:36:03 EDT 2011
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12.07.2011 16:26, Peter Batty wrote:
> I was going to make the same point as Dan. While helping organizing
> teams plan is one aim of the rotation, I would have thought that the
> primary aim is to make sure we have more consistent accessibility for
> attendees in various parts of the world, and avoid the situation we have
> just had where we have gone 4 years without a conference in the Americas
> (for example). If it ended up in Europe 3 out of 4 years that seems to
> go against the aim of making it more accessible to the global community.
Hi All,
to me this seems to be the most important factor:
> I think another factor in managing things is that the selection needs to
> be made earlier, so we are not scrambling in a situation like this.
The size and style of FOSS4G requires a dimension of logistics which
asks for a longer planning horizon.
To add another perspective:
Each region / community can stand up their own confernce like many
already do (Japan, Germany, Italy, etc.). To be honest - I would like to
see more of this. It would be a very convincing argument for me if a
local committe can say we have organized a similar event in the past
three years with growing success and now we want the super splendor
FOSS4G international event here. Great, much less worries. So in a way
instead of seeing FOSS4G as a seeding event what it was up to now it
might also evolve into the master event which can build upon the success
of existing infrastuctures.
Best regards,
Arnulf
> For
> 2010, Barcelona was selected in December of 2008, so they had 21 months
> to prepare. For 2011, the process started later, and Denver was notified
> in June 2010, giving us 15 months to prepare. For 2012, the process
> started later again, and whoever is selected (assuming the date remains
> similar) will have 12 months or so to prepare. FOSS4G has grown large
> enough that 12 months is really not a lot of notice to organize it. We
> need to get further ahead of the game on selecting the location for
> future events, which will also help in the broader planning process (to
> be able to have more time to seek alternatives in the originally planned
> locations, etc).
>
> So anyway, there are various factors to consider, but overall I think
> that the primary consideration is the community, not the convenience of
> the organizers (though we want to help them too of course), and so I
> lean pretty strongly against doing it in Europe 3 out of 4 years.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter.
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Daniel Ames <dan.ames at isu.edu
> <mailto:dan.ames at isu.edu>> wrote:
>
> I think it is important not only for the bidders but also (perhaps
> more importantly) for the broader community to maintain a somewhat
> predictable rotation. It's useful to remember that a lot (most?)
> users are attracted to FOSS because of financial reasons. Hence if
> FOSS4g is a "user conference" then it probably needs to move around
> to where the users are.
>
> - Dan
> --------
> Daniel P. Ames Ph.D.
> Idaho State University Dept. of Geosciences
> dan.ames at isu.edu <mailto:dan.ames at isu.edu>
> --------
> Sent from my Droid
>
> On Jul 12, 2011 7:36 AM, "Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS)"
> <bartvde at osgis.nl <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl>> wrote:
> > I fully agree with Dave here.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bart
> >
> >> Hold on -- is that really fair? We established a process here so that
> >> local groups could plan accordingly with full expectation that we
> will be
> >> in Europe for 2013. Why are we penalizing groups that are doing
> the hard
> >> work to plan a bid for 2013? by changing the rules on the fly, we
> provide
> >> no predictability, lose credibility, and will certainly reduce
> the quality
> >> of bids in the future.
> >>
> >> We setup a process -- the reality was that there were no LOIs by the
> >> deadline for non-EUR/NA, and we're following our own established and
> >> publicized rules to go to the next stage.
> >>
> >> Please consider the ramifications of the changes you are
> suggesting --
> >> they aren't insignificant.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2011-07-12, at 1:39 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> >>
> >>> Agreed. We should probably give not-EUR/NA another chance, then move
> >>> back to NA.
> >>> P.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Cameron Shorter
> >>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>>> Jeff, I think that Tyler's question is very important.
> >>>> If Europe is selected for 2012, then I think Europe should not be
> >>>> selected
> >>>> for 2013.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/07/11 10:11, Jeff McKenna wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Tyler,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd prefer to wait to discuss 2013 until the committee has the
> 2012
> >>>>> decision (I'd like 2012 to take the priority of the
> committee's time
> >>>>> now).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -jeff
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 11-07-11 6:33 PM, Tyler Mitchell wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just curious if the committee has thought about what the 2013 bid
> >>>>>> target
> >>>>>> region would look like if one of the European bids are
> selected, or
> >>>>>> if the
> >>>>>> planned rotation will be taken into consideration this year
> or not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I was talking to a handful of potential Euro. (and non-Euro)
> bidders
> >>>>>> who
> >>>>>> were holding out for 2013 since 2012 wasn't expected to be in
> their
> >>>>>> region,
> >>>>>> yet they weren't ready/able as a "backup" for this round.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I guess putting it the other way, if Vietnam is not chosen,
> will the
> >>>>>> rotation just act as if the planned region was skipped? Probably
> >>>>>> making a
> >>>>>> mountain out of a molehill, but had to ask.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Cameron Shorter
> >>>> Geospatial Director
> >>>> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050 <tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050>
> >>>> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254>
> >>>>
> >>>> Think Globally, Fix Locally
> >>>> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
> >>>> http://www.lisasoft.com
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Conference_dev mailing list
> >> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
- --
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk4cW9MACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b0MngCfRs93LJNDNBuJNj9U1VbBo4kG
BNEAmwZvFeTXdkqOiU2JT8z6vXbfyR8e
=8Wg9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list