[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2026 & more

[Tatiana Pará]

I found the phrase "global conference that rotates between different
regions" interesting. That said, I am confident we are promoting FOSS4G in
various regions around the world, including having hosted the first
in-person FOSS4G in South America.

I understand the perspective of needing a larger audience and ensuring
necessary profits, but before repeating any city, we should aim to cover
the entire world, reaching all regions—that is, "rotate between different
regions."

I support considering the direct concession proposal for Hiroshima. +1

Em seg., 16 de dez. de 2024 às 03:30, Maria Antonia Brovelli via
Conference_dev <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org> escreveu:

> +1
> Maria
>
> Inviato da Outlook per Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Conference_dev <conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf
> of Ho Dinh Duan via Conference_dev <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 16, 2024 5:41:21 AM
> *To:* michael terner <ternergeo at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* conference_dev <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2026 & more
>
> +1
> from Ho Dinh Duan
> Vietnam
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 7:23 AM michael terner via Conference_dev <
> conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
> +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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
*Tatiana Pará M. de Freitas*
​Agrônoma, especialista em Geotecnologias
Mestre em Desenvolvimento Rural e GEAE
Profª E.B.T.T. do  Instituto Federal do Pará - IFPA
Fundadora do projeto Meninas das Geotecnologias
*Rising Stars* 2023 -
*Geospatial World forum*Membra oficial *the Open Source Geospatial
Foundation* – OSGEO
Currículo Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/8346985753324274
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20241216/1bba8f90/attachment.htm>