[OSGeo-Conf] Discissons about SLOC's proposal LoI p. 92

[Till Adams]

Dear list!

As chair of OSGeo's CC I feel somehow asked to calm down discussions a
little bit. In the end, our job is to discuss and decide on the content
of the whole proposals, not only about one page.

To be honest, I for myself have no real opinion on this. This may result
somehow from the fact, that I personally know Ivan and his manner...

Finally SLOC handed in the proposal "as is" - so adding the letter in
question was under their control. I think, that it is clearly visible as
*their* proposal for hosting FOSS4G 2019 - written by SLOC, not by any
OSGeo official, also the LoI in question shows clearly, who wrote it. So
in my eyes it is *not* published as /official OSGeo document/, although
it is linked from our WIKI to our SVN.

In general I am kind of unsure, whether we really reach so many people
outside of our community, that really are keen on reading dozens of
pages of a proposal for hosting a conference? On the other hand - we are
multicultural and if that text really hurts feelings of our members, I'd
suggest SLOC to replace or remove it - also in their own interest, at
least in order not to cast any bad light on their proposal...

Whatever SLOC decides, I think that there will be no instance to control
further content in a special manner. Doing that would mean, that we'd
(who???) have to scan both documents completely before we release them
to the public. And who will do that job? Who has the power to decide,
what is "good" and what is "no good" ?
Not me, no way.

I only can appeal to you all to trust every single member of our
community, although sometimes people make things, that others might not
like. Please keep in mind, that we all have the same ideals & goals! And
finally, I'd like to ask you all to see the good thing: We have two
great proposals and regardless whereever FOSS4G 2019 will be - I am
convinced, that it will become a great event!

So let's continue our work and value the proposals!

Till



Am 05.12.2017 um 16:29 schrieb 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?