[OSGeo-Conf] Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

[Eli Adam]

To the extent that the Conference Committee makes formal motions and
decisions, Peter made a motion; Peter, Mark, Eli, and Steven voted for
the motion; Till voted against the motion; and having two days elapse,
I'm declaring the motion passed.  2022 LoIs will be open to Europe and
North America.

As a side note, we could be slightly more formal in our processes and
decision making which would make things more clear.

Best regards, Eli

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:45 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am in favour of receiving LoIs from both regions and then when we understand the level of interest we can take a view on whether to proceed to the full proposal stage for Europe only or for both regions
> ______
> Steven
>
> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
>
> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>
> On 20 Nov 2020, at 18:28, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>> >>>