[OSGeo-Conf] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some continuity of organization and management

[Till Adams]

Dear Eli,

thanks for bringing this up and sorry for not replying earlier. In
general your thoughts are justified. It *is* a lot of work when
organizing a conference like FOSS4G, but it's also passion.

If you ask for my vote, I'd also prefer "option 2" because it is always
better to review the existing status than not to do this.


But, although you postproned a discussion to "later", I'd like to add
some thoughts:

1. I like the idea, that every conference is somehow "individual" -
individual, because new LOC's bring up new ideas, that may also become
part of future conferences.

2. Also I was really happy as chair of my LOC, that we were able to
realize our ideas, that might fit better to our region, than getting a
global stamp by outsiders

In the german speaking chapter (FOSSGIS), we do it slightly different
from OSGeo. There is the permanent conference committee (that is open to
everybody), that organizes the program and does all the financial issues
like ticketing and so on - in other words, everything, that is not
individual or need to be done locally. This committee is supported by a
person, that gets paid for organizing our events and that does this for
several years now. Then there is the LOC, that cares about the venue,
the social events and everything else, that can be located at site.

In general I like this idea, although I really appreciate, that at OSGeo
those who already did a conference and have the experience (because
experience is different than having an opinion) form the conference
committee. In times I joined the FOSSGIS-committee, it felt sometimes
more like a debating club ...

Just my 2 cents,

Till 



Am 03.02.22 um 15:03 schrieb Eli Adam:
> Hi all (particularly voting committee members),
>
> The current FOSS4G structure has a new LOC every year starting more or
> less from scratch (some things like mailing lists and seed money are
> passed on).  Over the years, many people have commented on the load of
> work this creates for the LOC, the general inefficiency, the risk, and
> the burnout.  
>
> If you consider yourself a voting member of the committee
> (https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
> <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members>),
> please indicate your preference on this.  
>
> This is an informal poll to see if the conference committee wants to:
> 1. Keep it the way it is and not change anything
> 2. Change the FOSS4G organizing structure to something else
> (discussion of what we change it to can come later if people want to
> pursue this).  
>
> As I've expressed several times, I prefer option 2, changing the
> FOSS4G organizing structure.   
>
> Thanks for your time and participation.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220218/847e1032/attachment.html>