[OSGeo-Conf] Draft RfP FOSS4G2022
Eli Adam
eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
Wed Nov 18 11:01:39 PST 2020
+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.
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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