[FOSS4G2016] IRC meeting today - agenda // Re: foss4g2016 topics?

[till.adams at fossgis.de]

Hi,

I added your comments here: http://foss4g2016.org/redmine/issues/64

and also put this on the list for today:
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2016_Meeting_minutes#IRC_chat_2015-11-30


Till


Am 2015-11-30 09:42, schrieb Marc Vloemans:
> 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