[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2026 & more

[María Arias de Reyna]

I would be in favor of awarding it directly to Hiroshima. It was a very
good offer.

Unless some other potential LOC says now they have been working already for
2026 and their work would be lost too, I would not bother with an RFP.


El vie, 13 dic 2024, 1:42, Vasile Craciunescu via Conference_dev <
conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org> escribió:

> Dear Conference Committee members,
>
> We should be (a bit late) in the stage of announcing the RfP for hosting
> FOSS4G2026 (actually,. the RfP document was already prepared by me and
> Msilikale some time ago). However, you all remember that for 2024 we had
> one of the closest competitions for hosting our beloved event in 2025. The
> Auckland team got it by just one vote in front of Hiroshima LOC. I/we got
> countless messages about the great quality of both proposals and how
> pitiful it is to waste such hard work of one of the competitors in times
> when not so many teams have the courage to step in and aim for the
> organization of the global FOSS4G.
>
> The subject of how hard work is lost after an unsuccessful bid was
> discussed many times in the past. But, at that time, it was not a problem
> of not having multiple bids for the next year's conference. Well, if you
> take a good look at the landscape of the last 4 years, you will see that we
> are not in the same position.
>
> In this context, the Hiroshima LOC, represented by Nobusuke Iwasaki (in
> CC) expressed the will to extend their proposal to 2026. In today's
> economy, this is not something small. To keep it short, last week, in
> Belem, at FOSS4G 2024, me and Luca met with the OSGeo board to discuss this
> situation. The board is all in favor of directly awarding Hiroshima LOC to
> host FOSS4G 2026 and just to proceed with the RfP for 2027, giving more
> time for teams to prepare.
>
>   With all my recent experience, I'm also all in favor (Luca as well). So,
> dear CC members, please let us know what you think about this. Another idea
> from the discussion in Belem was that, when submitting the RfP, to have an
> option (optional) to say that your offer will stand for two consecutive
> years instead of one, like in the past.
>
> Warm regards,
> Vasile
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20241213/542dfe6b/attachment.htm>