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

[Venkatesh Raghavan]

A couple of questions;

- If knowing the game of organizing global is
   the crucial criteria for being an official member of CC,
   why are chairs of regional conferences
   (Jachym, Vasile MariaB (all my respect to them)
   and myself) presently serving CC as official members?

- If limiting the size of CC membership is an
   important consideration, why do we need
   two members from the Boston team?
   (no disrespect to either Michael Terner & Guido Stein)

Venka

On 1/25/2018 7:50 PM, Till Adams wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>