[OSGeo-Conf] Review of 2 proposals for hosting FOSS4G 2019 until Dec. 15th

[Thomas Burk]

I am glad the proposer and letter writer have weighed in on this. I, too,
was surprised by the reaction.

Not a good precedent to start censoring works based on the possibility that
feelings might be hurt. Or censorship for any other reason for that matter;
I can only assume no law was broken by what was written (though I don't
know what authority will determine the applicable laws here). A simple
statement that OSGeo is making the documents available as submitted,
without any actual or implied endorsement, might be a better approach to
take.

Is someone going to suggest edits of possibly offensive material in the
other proposal prior to review?

Thomas E. Burk


On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>
wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan <venka.osgeo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I just has a quick look at both and noticed that
>> the support letter on page 92 of the SLOC proposal
>> [1] is repulsive and in extremely poor taste.
>>
>
> As the person who wrote that letter, I cannot help but feel somewhat
> disappointed by this reaction.
>
> However, I know that W3F has always been seen as conflictive. There is a
> point to W3F, and there is a place and time to make that point. The call
> for venues for FOSS4G 2019 is not that place.
>
> I will work with the SLOC to provide an alternate letter. I'll also
> understand if the SLOC wants to withdraw my support from their proposal.
>
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171205/b71a96c8/attachment-0001.html>