[FOSS4G2016] foss4g2016 topics?

[Steven Feldman]

I agree

Providing some broad topics (but being clear that they are suggestions not limits on what will be accepted) will be helpful to people on the edge or outside of our community. Topic also help in possibly creating some structure to the programme when you  finally start choosing
______
Steven


> On 30 Nov 2015, at 08:42, Marc Vloemans <marcvloemans1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Codrina's reasoning.
> 
> Additionally; if you ask only contributions from within your own (OSGeo)community then you miss out on outside developments/trends. Which may influence OSGeo in the longer term. Call it process-reinforced-myopia.
> 
> If we want truly to Build Bridges, then we as organisers can be instrumental in - at least - providing tantalising views/contacts/topics/other by setting a certain amount of tracks. Tracks leading into unchartered waters ("Go boldly where no one has gone before!")
> Without estrangement of the regular visitors, who still can enjoy GeoServer, QGIS etc topics. 
> 
> Vriendelijke groet,
> Marc Vloemans
> 
> 
>> Op 30 nov. 2015 om 06:59 heeft Codrina Maria Ilie <codrina at geo-spatial.org> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> 2 weeks ago, at the irc meeting the matter of whether FOSS4G 2016 should have stated topics come up. I took the task of making a short review on what happened at previous FOSS4G events, not only global but regional as well. Here:[1] I put together a table in my attempt to capture the situation in a few previous years.
>> 
>> A few conclusions that I draw from this exercise:
>> On a general level:
>> the history of regional FOSS4G events is no quite so well preserved
>> (webpages no longer exist or they have been replaced with the latest regional event; due to various and objective reasons, sometimes regional events can/are not annual, which makes it very difficult to track their evolution over time, changing names etc.)
>> 
>> 
>> Related to topics:
>> for the purpose of this exercise, I haven't recorded below 2012;
>> a visible structuring of the event by topics as years pass by;
>> Academic track is a constant;
>> Independent of the naming of the topics, I would devise within the following categories:  Academic, Development, Use, Big Data/Open Data, SDI, 3D/SfM, Web, Standards, Tracks by theme.
>> 
>> Of course, many of the discovered topics can easily fall into more than just one category and this separation is intrinsically related to expertise, to the understanding of the topic etc.
>> 
>> 
>> The idea of topics and calls for topic is related to scientific conferences and can be seen when LOC members belong more to the academia. However, personally, I consider that there are some great benefits in defining topics for foss4g 2016.  Here is a list of pros and cons I could think of:
>> 
>> Pros:
>> - it can be well used in the dissemination of the event over communities
>> - it shows structuring and organization
>> - it could be of assistance in the call for the program committee
>> - it definitely helps when building the final program
>> - it can offer a guideline in selecting the keynote speakers and the day when they'll speak
>> - ...
>> 
>> Cons:
>> - requires a considerable effort in selecting the topics; splintering too much vs. making it too general
>> - additional work in drafting pertinent characterizations
>> - ...
>> 
>> 
>> @Till, if this is of interest maybe it can be put on the meeting agenda of tonight?
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Codrina
>> 
>> 
>> 1:[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fol4MAgtkNJOpeDbgggyRwgiZk9QKrYXBu9AQ5dL9XM/edit?usp=sharing] 
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
>> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016
> _______________________________________________
> FOSS4G2016 mailing list
> FOSS4G2016 at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2016