[OSGeo-Discuss] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023

Wed Jan 12 23:37:57 PST 2022

++1

Il gio 13 gen 2022, 07:46 Jeroen Ticheler via Discuss <
discuss at lists.osgeo.org> ha scritto:

> +1 Very well said Mark!
>
> Jeroen (fellow idiot)
>
> Op 13 jan. 2022 om 03:14 heeft Mark Iliffe via Discuss <
> discuss at lists.osgeo.org> het volgende geschreven:
>
> 
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I would like to start this email with the caveat, statement, and admission
> that "*I am an idiot*" to ensure all are provided with the requisite
> informed context.
>
> The environmental concerns of holding a conference are immense, that we
> would be reticent not to consider. I for one love this planet, as I happen
> to be living on it and I quite like living. Living involves whiskey, dim
> sum and chocolate. In short, I don't want to stop living because I doubt
> those things will be in it.
>
> To tell a story. I cried in an airport on 31 December. I had seen my
> parents for the first time in a long time and was heading back 'home' to
> NYC. I was listening to my very good friend Steven talk to my other good
> friend Ivan on "The Politics of Geo
> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://podcasts.apple.com/be/podcast/ivan-sanchez-the-politics-of-geo/id1500132553?i%3D1000545491911&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw0HczaX1JTy1E1sCQY3Wn5m>".
> The emotion of hearing Ivan discuss the transitive relationships within the
> nexus of economy, philosophy and geography provided an emotional crescendo
> that I am sure made a few people quite uncomfortable. We are social beings
> and we would be irresponsible not to take our community to where it can
> have the maximum impact. I suspect we, in our own way, have had these
> moments during these very challenging times over the past two years.
>
> Through our work, we provide humanity with the very tools which will
> provide its salvation. For example, through the efforts of FOSS4G in Dar es
> Salaam (which was a privilege to co-chair with Msiliakle) from bringing the
> largest (yet!) number of travel grant awardees to directly supporting an
> FGM charity with resources to combat the horrid practice, we managed to
> achieve something that would have simply been impossible virtually. It is
> with pride that I note that one of our FOSS4G TGP awardees went on to
> Keynote in Argentina. I write this as a past FOSS4G chair because of the
> mentorship of our community. Others will come through our networking and
> will go on to achieve more and drive more than we could have ever imagined.
>
> We must undertake efforts to make sure that there is geographically
> equitable representation to inspire and foster the next generation. We have
> no choice but to do this in person, not due to exacting mental health costs
> on us imposed by our current challenges, but to inspire the next and
> undertake every effort to ensure that all are capable of participating. The
> past two years have demonstrated the hard limit of our virtual world and we
> do not have the time to wait for the next 5 billion to come and join us -
> we must go out to meet them and embrace them where they are, not where we
> are. To me, the question is not the environmental cost of convening a
> FOSS4G, it would be the cost to humanity of not convening one.
>
> But, then again, this is my personal opinion and I am an idiot.
>
> Best,
>
> Mark
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 16:51, Jonathan Moules via Discuss <
> discuss at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
>> The problem with the social interaction arguments is the massive
>> environmental cost.
>>
>> It's about 22,000 km round trip from either NW USA or West Europe to
>> Buenos Aires, Argentina for example.
>> Depending on the calculator you use, that's about 4 tonnes of CO2 for the
>> round trip. The world target by 2030 is 2.1 tonnes per capita (Page XXV -
>> UN Environment Programme report -
>> https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34426/EGR20.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34426/EGR20.pdf?sequence%3D1%26isAllowed%3Dy&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw04GkLj5fj80j3OMp5HGq6z>
>> ). So that's about two-person years of CO2 emissions for a ~4 day
>> conference.
>>
>> This is why I ask what actual benefits "networking" provides. It's not
>> part of an anti-social crusade, it's because "business as usual" for us
>> means "our grandparents screwed everything up for us" in a few generations.
>> Jetting around the planet has a real-world cost even if it's one that's
>> invisible to most of us right now.
>>
>> We take our ability to jet around the globe by air for granted but forget
>> that just 90 years ago it was impossible. Literally. The (turbo) jet hadn't
>> been invented. And even today, the vast vast majority (> 90%, probably much
>> higher) of the world's population never fly in a given year (
>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/how-much-worlds-population-has-flown-airplane-180957719/
>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/how-much-worlds-population-has-flown-airplane-180957719/&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw11quhr8roq2R6tiIlEnrdW>
>> ).
>>
>>
>> > I think if a group of individuals[1], or several groups, want to put
>> forward proposals for the conference to be located in "Cyberspace"[2] then
>> that should not be disallowed, and then its up to the conference committee
>> to consider it fairly according to the criteria for selection.
>>
>> On the surface, this is a good idea, but unfortunately it has a
>> fundamental problem:
>> There are no "criteria for selection" of the conference beyond "the
>> committee members voted for this proposal". There's zero transparency in
>> the process.
>>
>> It strikes me that there is another advantage to the online setup, one
>> that solves a very real recurring problem of the in-person conferences:
>> Repeatability.
>> Currently every conference starts from scratch; the new LOC has to figure
>> everything out for themselves and all the knowledge from the old LOC is
>> lost (although they do usually try to help with the transition). However,
>> with an online conference, once the tooling is setup for the first one it
>> would seem the burden to create the later ones would be much lower, and
>> you'd benefit from possibly having some LOC members do it multiple times
>> allowing the transfer for institutional knowledge.
>>
>> (And no, for a whole host of reasons, I'm not the person to put forth any
>> formal proposal)
>>
>>
>> On 2022-01-12 15:52, Barry Rowlingson via Discuss wrote:
>>
>> I think if a group of individuals[1], or several groups, want to put
>> forward proposals for the conference to be located in "Cyberspace"[2] then
>> that should not be disallowed, and then its up to the conference committee
>> to consider it fairly according to the criteria for selection.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> [1] Not me
>> [2] But not "the metaverse". Just No.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:45 PM Michael Smith via Discuss <
>> discuss at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This email originated outside the University. Check before clicking
>>> links or attachments.
>>>
>>> I would say that its probably best to think about Hybrid, as this is
>>> what is happening for 2022. Essentially you are both right, there are
>>> pluses and minuses to each. And we want to support both going forward as
>>> there isn’t going to be an approach that works for everyone. Future FOSS4Gs
>>> will probably all part virtual and in-person.
>>>
>>> Note this is my personal opinion.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Michael Smith
>>> US Army Corps / Remote Sensing GIS Center
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/12/22, 10:28 AM, "Discuss on behalf of Iván Sánchez Ortega via
>>> Discuss" <discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org on behalf of
>>> discuss at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>     El miércoles, 12 de enero de 2022 15:26:05 (CET) Jonathan Moules via
>>> Discuss
>>>     escribió:
>>>     >  > we really hope that FOSS4G2023 can be safely
>>>     >  > organized in physical format.
>>>     >
>>>     > Why?
>>>
>>>     Because we humans are social animals; and people like me, who are
>>> almost
>>>     completely burnt out by not having been outside of their houses for
>>> nearly two
>>>     years, could really use an in-person event to see their friends and
>>> their
>>>     personal heroes.
>>>
>>>     I'm not gonna attack Jonathan's points (or even reply to them,
>>> risking an
>>>     episode of sealioning to erode my patience), but I want to make one
>>> of my own:
>>>
>>>     It's good for our collective mental health. We *want* an in person
>>> event, we
>>>     *hope* for it; which for me is a sign our brains have some demand
>>> for it, even
>>>     if it's intangible.
>>>
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>
>>> https://ivan.sanchezortega.es
>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ivan.sanchezortega.es&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw34iUYZh1VuYamUS-VTOepd>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Discuss mailing list
>>>     Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw247H2c7SvMC3XD-oMsSUV6>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw247H2c7SvMC3XD-oMsSUV6>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing listDiscuss at lists.osgeo.orghttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw247H2c7SvMC3XD-oMsSUV6>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw247H2c7SvMC3XD-oMsSUV6>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw247H2c7SvMC3XD-oMsSUV6
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20220113/d1fd29c1/attachment.html>