[OSGeo-Conf] Draft RfP FOSS4G2022
Mark Iliffe
markiliffe at gmail.com
Wed Nov 18 09:58:33 PST 2020
+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.
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:39 AM adams at osgeo.org <adams at osgeo.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20201118/982a1dcc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list