[OSGeo-Conf] Draft RfP FOSS4G2022
adams at osgeo.org
adams at osgeo.org
Wed Nov 18 08:39:34 PST 2020
Dear CC,
looks like we got stuck here somehow. Maybe we as CC should have a clear
decision first on whether we tzhink that we should have
22 as a
- "NA" year
- "EU" year
- open the call for both
before we involve the board. I wil lsend an email to the board and keep
them updated in our discussion.
Till
Am 16.11.20 um 15:15 schrieb Mark Iliffe:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://mappery.org>
> >>
> >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
> >>
> >> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Conference_dev mailing list
> >>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Conference_dev mailing list
> >> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Conference_dev mailing list
> >> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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
>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list