[OSGeo-Conf] Draft RfP FOSS4G2022
adams at osgeo.org
adams at osgeo.org
Wed Nov 18 23:57:02 PST 2020
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.
>>>
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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