[OSGeo-Conf] Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Mon Nov 16 06:15:04 PST 2020

In the interest of time, happy to defer and strongly support the broader
Conference Committee. To clarify, I too like the idea of remaining in
cycle, but wish for the potential economic impact to be considered a bit
more. I'd propose the co-chairs and/or Till summarises the pertinent points
for the board's decision. Regardless of what happens, I strongly urge the
OSGeo to discuss and note the decision for the record.

Cheers,

Mark

On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 06:07, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree with Eli. I see the point, that of course the turn for NA might
> be long - on the other side, I know at least about one team from europe,
> that already prepare their bid for 2022 since a year now.
>
> Nevertheless I like the idea of keeping our cycle, as the above might
> also be the case for other potential bidders.
>
> If we discuss this or vote on that point, I would suggest to hurry up,
> as we are already little late with our call or 2022.
>
> Regards, Till
>
>
>
> Am 13.11.20 um 20:32 schrieb Eli Adam:
> > Skipping a year means that it will be longer to return to *some*
> > region.  Sticking with the existing rotation keeps things going the
> > same and returns the rotation back to "normal" soonest.
> >
> > I slightly favor keeping 22 a Europe year, 23 a NA year, and 24 an
> > Other Regions year.  I'm open to other rotations too, particularly if
> > someone has a good argument for it or strong feelings.  If finances
> > require, skipping Other Regions in 24 would make the most sense but we
> > are a long ways away from that decision.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > Best regards, Eli
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we consider
> opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers the best proposal?
> >> ______
> >> Steven
> >>
> >> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
> >>
> >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
> >>
> >> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't
> following the mailing list closely these days.
> >>
> >> He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that they
> would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He said that
> in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned that traditional
> conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.
> >>
> >> So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still have a
> slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't have overly
> strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the question had been
> discussed.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>     Peter.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de>
> wrote:
> >>> Dear Peter,
> >>>
> >>> as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting we had
> with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on keep our cycle
> "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.
> >>>
> >>> The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they
> feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.
> >>>
> >>> I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we will
> have on friday.
> >>>
> >>> Till
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the conversation
> around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there were some suggestions
> that the 2022 event should be held in North America, so we don't go so long
> without having an event there, and also that we should offer the right of
> first refusal to the Calgary team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event
> we could elect to award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably
> subject to submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the
> Calgary team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably
> due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I missed
> any subsequent discussion on this front.
> >>>
> >>> Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the right
> of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't want to do
> it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022 should be North
> America (which means we would go 5 years between NA events, 4 years between
> European events) or Europe (6 years between NA events, 3 years between
> European events).
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>     Peter.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de>
> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Vasile,
> >>>>
> >>>> I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to have a
> >>>> WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding
> process,
> >>>> like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process open
> and
> >>>> transparent.
> >>>>
> >>>> Till
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
> >>>>> Dear CC members,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting for a
> >>>>> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
> >>>>> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason we kept
> >>>>> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some decisions
> >>>>> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on the
> new
> >>>>> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
> >>>>> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
> >>>>> additions/changes from the last document editions are highlighted in
> orange.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Warm regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
> >>>>> CC Co-chairs
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201116/0ab4d480/attachment-0001.html>