[OSGeo-Conf] some decisions in the pipe

[David William Bitner]

My apologies for not replying. I have been very busy as-of-late, traveling
during both vote periods and did not have time to do a thorough review of
the proposals and as such did not vote on the RfPs.

I am happy to step aside from the committee if that is the direction that
this group would like to take for members who may not be able to engage
every year, but to my opinion, we bring folks onto this committee because
of their experience and trust that we have in them. Part of that trust is
that they will act only when they can give the proper due diligence. I
would like to stay engaged with this committee (and will regardless of if I
am a voting member) but cannot commit that I will be able to do appropriate
due diligence each year, and in the case that I cannot I will not vote.

I see very little problem in having a large committee here and in fact
think that as long as we are very deliberative on who we bring in, having a
large committee can help to mitigate that not everyone is going to be
willing or able to spend the time each and every year reviewing proposals.

I absolutely and enthusiastically second the nomination of Guido and
Michael. I also support the nomination of Gerald and believe that getting
more regional chairs involved and trying to bridge the brick wall that
seems to exist between how we look at the regional events and the "Big
Show" can only help us be more strategic and reach out to more people,
companies, business sectors, and different parts of the world.

David

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 5:33 AM, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:

> Hi Conference comittee,
>
> this is a general reminder on some decisions/discussions, that I have on
> my list we have to talk about in the following weeks. This email serves
> just as a general list-up with the hope, that you'll find some time to
> think about some of my issues. If you have your own things to bring in,
> feel free to share!
>
> I will list these points as seperate issues below and would be happy if
> we start a discussion:
>
> 1. Voting Members
>
> For the last RfP, where we nominated Bucharest as venue for the 2019
> conference, we had a weak quorum, because quite some members did not
> vote. I sent out personal emails to the non-voters and received feedback
> from 3 of the 5 non-voters. These 3 excused themselves, they had reasons
> and they are willing to stay on board and that makes me happy.
>
> Leads me to the question, that I still did not get any feedback from the
> other 2. Now it's already some weeks ago that I contacted them,
> including a remembering mail.
> I don't know if we have an official trial to rule out people and
> personnally I wouldn't like to do that, because I know at least one of
> the 2 personally.
> On the other side, we can't be sure, that they will appear back once
> upon a time. Not re-appearing means that we have to fear more weak
> quorums in the future.
>
> Issue 1: How do we act here?
>
> This directly leads me to question 2: I will nominate Guido Stein and
> Michael Terner as new members for the CC later. I think as former chairs
> of a successful global FOSS4G conference, it is without question clear,
> that we need them as new members in CC. Also there was a request of
> Gerald Fenoy back this summer, where he asked for participation as member.
> I am little unsure here, because I fear, that we will have a huge CC
> within a few years, when we also nominate all past chairs of regional
> events. In my eyes (without rating!!!) organizing a regional event is a
> cmletely different game than having a global FOSS4G. And our job is to
> vote on proposals for global conferences venues. On the other side, of
> course, having some more active members inside CC wouldn't be the badest
> idea.
>
> Issue 2: Accept nomination of Gerald Fenoy (and potential other regional
> chairs?) ?
>
>
> 2. Voting process
> We discussed to alter the voting process, so that for step 1 (LOI
> acceptance) of the RfP 2019 we had this new "thumbs up"/"thumbs down"
> vote. I will soon call for a vote, whether we want to keep this
> procedure or go back to the old "one vote per member" also for step 1.
>
>
> 3. Bid process
> I do not know, how you felt in the last RfP. I had problems in comparing
> the two proposals, because one of them was very close to the draft we
> gave out and the Sevilla one was, let's say, "freely interpreted" ;-).
> I don't want to limit the teams' individual imagination, but perhaps it
> would be easier for comparing the proposals, if all proposals would have
> the same agenda. This also would save the teams from spending money on a
> marketing agency for layout things (I do not want to impute, that this
> happened in 2019, but this *might* happen in the future in order to put
> one proposal in a better light). I wil call for a vote on this issue
> soon as well.
>
>
> So far, have a nice day!
>
> Till
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev




-- 
************************************
David William Bitner
dbSpatial LLC
612-578-9553
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20180123/9bd61d64/attachment.html>