[OSGeo-Conf] Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Eli Adam eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
Sat Nov 21 14:22:28 PST 2020

On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:41 PM adams at osgeo.org <adams at osgeo.org> wrote:
> Dear Eli,
> sorry, I do not agree with your way of bringing things forward. Calling
> out a vote is for me at least, giving it a week for people to decide on
> it. Normally members of CC call out a vote "officially" - which id not

I agree wholeheartedly!  The committee's "decision process" is
entirely casual.  I've chastised the committee for this repeatedly
over the years to apparently little effect.  Our decision making
problem isn't news to me.  I think it would be nice to improve our
decision making process but have found little consensus or interest in
that.  To the extent that we have a decision making process, it is
here, https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Decisions,
which specifies two business days.

> happen in my eyes -- OR  I did not see that Peter officiall declared a
> motion (in the past this was often marked as "motion" in the title).

No official motion was declared but it seems about as close as we get.

> Perhaps it would be fair, if we would call it an offical vote, before
> setting a deadlines ?

Sure, call a motion and herd the cats to voting.  Good examples of
proper motions give people something to follow.  I was looking with an
eye towards the schedule in the RFP (and your own request that we were
getting late):

Request for Proposals released

Stage 1
Letters of Intent submitted to Conference Mailing List by 2400 GMT

> Till
> Am 20.11.20 um 20:45 schrieb 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.

^^More of me chastising our casual decision process.

Previously I suggested other decision making processes since in my
opinion getting the CC to make a proper decision is fairly cumbersome
and difficult.

"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?"

If either of the committee co-chairs want to offer procedural
guidance, that would be fine too and I defer to them.

Mostly in agreement and trying to work with what we have, Eli

p.s. I voted for this because other people suggested it and it does
take a more cautious approach without any undue burden or unfairness
on potential LOCs.  Personally, I prefer keeping the same rotation and
will vote on LOIs and full proposals using that as one of my criteria.

> >
> > 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.
> >>>>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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