[OSGeo-Conf] Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Thu Dec 10 13:02:31 PST 2020

Hey:
Quick question...I was just on a call with OSGeo US Chapter and we
discussed letting North American folks know that the 2022 Call for Proposal
will be accepting proposal from both North Am. and Europe. But we figured
we should wait until the RFP is released, and the timeline is announced. It
looks like we're basically a month behind the sched that was in the *draft* RFP
that was reviewed on this thread (see below):
[image: image.png]

Do we have any sense when this will be released, and when the timeline will
be updated?

Not trying to rush anything, just curious about the timeline and process...

MT

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 2:38 AM adams at osgeo.org <adams at osgeo.org> wrote:

> Dear Eli,
>
> you are right, the decision process in our committee is - let's say -
> improvable ;-)
>
> But this is another topic, maybe our chaiors will take the initiative
> for this?
>
> I will call out for a motion now.
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 21.11.20 um 23:22 schrieb Eli Adam:
> > On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:41 PM adams at osgeo.org <adams at osgeo.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Eli,
> >>
> >> sorry, I do not agree with your way of bringing things forward. Calling
> >> out a vote is for me at least, giving it a week for people to decide on
> >> it. Normally members of CC call out a vote "officially" - which id not
> >
> > I agree wholeheartedly!  The committee's "decision process" is
> > entirely casual.  I've chastised the committee for this repeatedly
> > over the years to apparently little effect.  Our decision making
> > problem isn't news to me.  I think it would be nice to improve our
> > decision making process but have found little consensus or interest in
> > that.  To the extent that we have a decision making process, it is
> > here, https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Decisions,
> > which specifies two business days.
> >
> >> happen in my eyes -- OR  I did not see that Peter officiall declared a
> >> motion (in the past this was often marked as "motion" in the title).
> >
> > No official motion was declared but it seems about as close as we get.
> >
> >>
> >> Perhaps it would be fair, if we would call it an offical vote, before
> >> setting a deadlines ?
> >
> > Sure, call a motion and herd the cats to voting.  Good examples of
> > proper motions give people something to follow.  I was looking with an
> > eye towards the schedule in the RFP (and your own request that we were
> > getting late):
> >
> > Request for Proposals released
> > 2020-11-02
> >
> > Stage 1
> > Letters of Intent submitted to Conference Mailing List by 2400 GMT
> > 2020-11-23
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Till
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 20.11.20 um 20:45 schrieb Eli Adam:
> >>> To the extent that the Conference Committee makes formal motions and
> >>> decisions, Peter made a motion; Peter, Mark, Eli, and Steven voted for
> >>> the motion; Till voted against the motion; and having two days elapse,
> >>> I'm declaring the motion passed.  2022 LoIs will be open to Europe and
> >>> North America.
> >>>
> >>> As a side note, we could be slightly more formal in our processes and
> >>> decision making which would make things more clear.
> >
> > ^^More of me chastising our casual decision process.
> >
> > Previously I suggested other decision making processes since in my
> > opinion getting the CC to make a proper decision is fairly cumbersome
> > and difficult.
> >
> > "Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email?  Plan a meeting to
> > discuss and decide?  Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?  Just
> > let things continue on the same path and without having taken action
> > otherwise, the same rotation continues?"
> >
> > If either of the committee co-chairs want to offer procedural
> > guidance, that would be fine too and I defer to them.
> >
> > Mostly in agreement and trying to work with what we have, Eli
> >
> > p.s. I voted for this because other people suggested it and it does
> > take a more cautious approach without any undue burden or unfairness
> > on potential LOCs.  Personally, I prefer keeping the same rotation and
> > will vote on LOIs and full proposals using that as one of my criteria.
> >
> >>>
> >>> Best regards, Eli
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:45 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I am in favour of receiving LoIs from both regions and then when we
> understand the level of interest we can take a view on whether to proceed
> to the full proposal stage for Europe only or for both regions
> >>>> ______
> >>>> Steven
> >>>>
> >>>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
> >>>>
> >>>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20 Nov 2020, at 18:28, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Till, this is stating the obvious, but the team you know of in Europe
> can still bid if we make 2022 open to both Europe and NA, and those on the
> committee who prefer to keep on the current cycle can weigh that in their
> evaluation (if we get bids from both sides of the Atlantic). Again, I don't
> have overly strong views either way, but I think it just gives us more
> options if we leave it open to both.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think at this point anyone is actively proposing making it
> only NA for 2022, should we just have a committee vote between the two
> options of accepting bids for 2022 from Europe only, or from Europe and
> North America? Do we need any further discussion before we do that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>     Peter.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:57 AM adams at osgeo.org <adams at osgeo.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would prefer to keep the cycle as is, which would mean Europe in
> 2022
> >>>>> and NA in 2023.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As said, I know from at least one team, that is working for more
> than a
> >>>>> year on the expected call for Europe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Till
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 18.11.20 um 20:01 schrieb Eli Adam:
> >>>>>> +1 to Peter
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That sounds reasonable to me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Eli
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:58 AM Mark Iliffe <markiliffe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1 to Peter
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 12:50, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think there is merit in Steven's suggestion of opening the call
> to both NA and EU. I think there is a possibility we may get fewer
> proposals than usual as potential organizers may see more risks than there
> were in pre-Covid days, and opening it to both would mitigate this to some
> degree. I don't see much downside to doing this.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>     Peter.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>

-- 
Michael Terner
ternergeo at gmail.com
(M) 978-631-6602
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20201210/ca356d5b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 68173 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20201210/ca356d5b/attachment-0001.png>