[OSGeo-Conf] early Preparation of RFP 2021

Wed Jun 5 09:41:36 PDT 2019

Hi,

I think I missed that email :) But yes, I think it should be best.

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:01 PM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to that Maria AR
>
> " Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly
> agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have
> until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't
> explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although
> they can ask questions like any other osgeo member)” is just about the same
> as I suggested
> ______
> Steven
>
> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
>
> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
> newsletter
>
> On 5 Jun 2019, at 14:50, María Arias de Reyna <delawen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I also think this is a problem. Choosing the foss4g venue is one of the
> most relevant tasks of OSGeo because it decides where and how the community
> is going to grow that year.
>
> Having not committed people on that decision is an issue. And I understand
> someone may not have time to review it some years, that's fine, we cannot
> be 100% always. Skipping some processes is normal.
>
> But people that can't take the time to review it year after year shows
> they are no longer interested/are disconnected/are too busy and we should
> acknowledge it and don't make them part of the decision. I don't think
> pressing them to participate is also good, this is a hard decision and
> should be taken by people who can and want to do it.
>
> Having people not voting leads to forcing other people to vote without
> really reviewing the proposals. Because we have to get the minimum quorum
> and we need votes, no matter if they didn't have the time to review.  I
> don't think it is a good idea to have people without the time to properly
> review the proposals feeling forced to vote.
>
>  Why not cleaning the pool of voters before, by making them explicitly
> agree to participate on the process each year? Like: all the voters have
> until 1st of September to accept the task of reviewing. If they don't
> explicitly show interest, they will not be part of the process (although
> they can ask questions like any other osgeo member).
>
> Cheers,
> The other Maria.
>
> El mié., 5 jun. 2019 14:16, Maria Antonia Brovelli <
> maria.brovelli at polimi.it> escribió:
>
>> Dear Till
>> If I'm the only person who believe that this is a problem, I will survive
>> also with this situation. In the CC I'm simply a member and I prefer to put
>> my (small) free time on something where I have more responsabilities.
>> I remember enough well the discussions of the past and I don't want to
>> find myself again in similar not confortable situations. Thanks a lot and
>> go ahead as you please.
>> Best
>> Maria
>>
>>
>>
>> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>>
>>
>> -------- Messaggio originale --------
>> Da: Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de>
>> Data: 05/06/19 13:32 (GMT+01:00)
>> A: conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R: R: *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>>
>> Dear Maria,
>>
>> I would suggest the following: We de-couple the topic of "non-active
>> members" from "voters for RFP 2021".
>>
>> For RFP 2021 I would proceed as Steven suggested.
>>
>> For the "non-active-members"-topic, I would suggest, that you start a
>> motion in CC. If the motion is accepted, we then can discuss - also based
>> on the past RFP's - who is affected.
>>
>> How about that?
>>
>> Till
>>
>>
>> Am 05.06.19 um 12:36 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
>>
>> I believe that having a large committee of always silent people is
>> useless. Better less, but active.
>>
>> After having proposed, if people don't show up, I propose to remove them.
>> It could be not the first year, we can consider if this happens for two
>> following years.
>>
>> I like neither removement nor auto-removement but I don't see the point
>> of being in a Committee if one person has not time for voting once a year.
>>
>> Thanks a lot!
>> Best,
>> Maria
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>>
>>
>> -------- Messaggio originale --------
>> Da: Till Adams <adams at terrestris.de> <adams at terrestris.de>
>> Data: 05/06/19 11:51 (GMT+01:00)
>> A: conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] R:  *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>>
>> Maria,
>>
>> we can do the following (and that is what I did last year):
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> -> ask whether people will vote on RFP
>>
>> [wait]
>>
>> -> re-ask those, who did not reply
>>
>> [wait]
>>
>> -> propose those who do not want to vote AND those who did not reply, to
>> leave the committee.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>> Indeed, there are some people, that did not vote for the past years, but
>> is auto-removement really what we want to do in our community?
>>
>>
>> Till
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 05.06.19 um 11:44 schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
>> > Dear Stefan, Till and All
>> > I don't agree in changing the rules of the voting. It is the main
>> > commitment of the CC members. I prefere that people who don't have time
>> > for more than X years, ask to be removed from the Committee.
>> > Best,
>> > Maria
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung
>> >
>> >
>> > -------- Messaggio originale --------
>> > Da: Till Adams <adams at terrestris.de> <adams at terrestris.de>
>> > Data: 05/06/19 11:33 (GMT+01:00)
>> > A: conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> > Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] *early* Preparation of RFP 2021
>> >
>> > Dear Steven,
>> >
>> > thanks for correction ;-).
>> >
>> > I agree on shorten the question period for stage 1. Nothing happened in
>> > the past days of this period in the past RFP's as far as I can remember.
>> >
>> > Regarding the voting: I agree and wanted to ask the CC members anyway in
>> > advance. We can agree on changing the votring process in general, so
>> > that gets part of our rules. I will prepare a motion towards this ;-)
>> >
>> > Till
>> >
>> >
>> > Am 05.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> >> Great work Till, thank you
>> >>
>> >> I think there was an error in the opening line:
>> >>
>> >> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in North America.”
>> >>
>> >> I have changed to:
>> >>
>> >> "FOSS4G 2021 will most likely be held in "Other Regions”.”
>> >>
>> >> Re *timeline*: could we bring the decision date for Stage 1 forward to
>> >> 14 or 15 October (shorten the question period if necessary) to give a
>> >> little more time for proposal writing?
>> >>
>> >> *Voting*: Last year we had a small problem in getting sufficient votes
>> >> for a quorum. Should we consider a slight change given the size of the
>> >> committee?
>> >> *Suggestion*: Before the call process commences all committee members
>> >> are asked to confirm that they wish to be included as voters for the
>> >> call, any that do not confirm would be considered recused for this vote
>> >> but would remain a member of the committee for future votes. That way
>> >> the >50% votes required for a quorum should not be a problem.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> ______
>> >> Steven
>> >>
>> >> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>> >>
>> >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
>> >> newsletter
>> >>
>> >>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:07, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de
>> >>> <mailto:till.adams at fossgis.de <till.adams at fossgis.de>>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear CC!
>> >>>
>> >>> I had some minutes and started an *early* prepare of the call for
>> 2021.
>> >>>
>> >>> I added this WIKI page here:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>> >>>
>> >>> Please check carefully whether the dates fit for you and of course for
>> >>> other errors.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I will prepapre the needed documents in the next days and send them to
>> >>> you.
>> >>>
>> >>> Have a great 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
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > ------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
>> > FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------
>> > Mail: adams at terrestris.de
>> > Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>> >
>> > terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
>> > Kölnstraße 99
>> > 53111 Bonn
>> >
>> > Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
>> > Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>> >
>> > Internet: www.terrestris.de <http://www.terrestris.de>
>> >
>> > Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>> >
>> > Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
>> > Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>> >
>> > Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
>> > Homepage unter folgendem Link:
>> > https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Conference_dev mailing list
>> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>>    SHOGun - das WebGIS Framework
>> FOSS4G in Bukarest! 2019.foss4g.org
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Mail: adams at terrestris.de
>> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 52
>>
>> terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
>> Kölnstraße 99
>> 53111 Bonn
>>
>> Tel.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 51
>> Fax.: +49 (0)228 - 962 899 57
>>
>> Internet: www.terrestris.de
>>
>> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
>>
>> Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch:
>> Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen, Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams
>>
>> Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf unserer
>> Homepage unter folgendem Link:
>> https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing listConference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttps://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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190605/38a9081b/attachment-0001.html>