[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2026 & more

[michael terner]

+1

I too would support awarding directly to Hiroshima.

That said, it would seem important for Conference Dev to talk about the
future, heading into 2027. Should we be striving to have a global
conference that rotates across different regions (e.g., how the North
America, EMEA and "other regions" rotated)? How can we find/incentivize
interested teams in different regions? There hasn't been a global FOSS4G in
North America since 2017 (largely due to the bad luck of COVID for the 2020
Calgary team). In some ways, having the New Zealand and Hiroshima
conferences take place in 2025 and 2026 gives Conference Dev *time *and
some room to assess how we look for conference teams and the potential for
developing a future, sustainable plan.

My $.02...

MT

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 3:14 PM María Arias de Reyna via Conference_dev <
conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>


-- 
Michael Terner
ternergeo at gmail.com
(M) 978-631-6602
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20241215/50d9f2ac/attachment.htm>