[OSGeo-Conf] Draft RfP FOSS4G2022
Peter Batty
peter at ebatty.com
Fri Nov 20 10:28:56 PST 2020
Till, this is stating the obvious, but the team you know of in Europe can
still bid if we make 2022 open to both Europe and NA, and those on the
committee who prefer to keep on the current cycle can weigh that in their
evaluation (if we get bids from both sides of the Atlantic). Again, I don't
have overly strong views either way, but I think it just gives us more
options if we leave it open to both.
I don't think at this point anyone is actively proposing making it only NA
for 2022, should we just have a committee vote between the two options of
accepting bids for 2022 from Europe only, or from Europe and North America?
Do we need any further discussion before we do that?
Cheers,
Peter.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:57 AM adams at osgeo.org <adams at osgeo.org> wrote:
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201120/2ab87372/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list