[OSGeo-Conf] R: some decisions in the pipe

[Till Adams]

Dear Maria,

I am not wanting to do any separation here. But - in my eyes, as
long-term co-organisator of numerous regional FOSSGIS conferences (with
regularly up to 400-500 attendees), I can say that organizing a global
FOSS4G is a completely different game - in sight of venue, size,
cost-structure, number of events and much more.

Just wanted to note that.

Till


Am 23.01.2018 um 20:13 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
> +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. 
> Best regards 
> Maria 
>
>
>
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de>
> Data: 23/01/18 12:33 (GMT+01:00)
> A: conference <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> Oggetto: [OSGeo-Conf]  some decisions in the pipe
>
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20180125/ca9855c2/attachment.html>