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

[Peter Batty]

I vote for 2, to consider options for improvement (thanks for the prompt
Eli).

I have always felt that we could do more to help the LOCs and have better
continuity from year to year. In many ways we more or less start
from scratch with FOSS4G each year, though of course with some informal
communication and sharing of experiences from previous years.

It is a hard problem to solve though, and we've had a few attempts and
discussions at this before. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have another
try. I was going to talk about some of the previous attempts, but perhaps
that should wait until we've decided if we pursue option 2.

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 7:04 AM Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:

> 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), 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/20220218/1420796b/attachment.html>