Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Vasile Crăciunescu
Dear CC members,

It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting for a
solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason we kept
postponing this message). However, it's time to make some decisions
regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on the new
proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
additions/changes from the last document editions are highlighted in orange.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing

Warm regards,

Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
CC Co-chairs
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Till Adams-3
Hi Vasile,

I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to have a
WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding process,
like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process open and
transparent.

Till

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process


Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:

> Dear CC members,
>
> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting for a
> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason we kept
> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some decisions
> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on the new
> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
> additions/changes from the last document editions are highlighted in orange.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
> CC Co-chairs
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Peter Batty
Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I missed any subsequent discussion on this front.

Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022 should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between NA events, 3 years between European events).

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Vasile,

I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to have a
WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding process,
like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process open and
transparent.

Till

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process


Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
> Dear CC members,
>
> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting for a
> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason we kept
> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some decisions
> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on the new
> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
> additions/changes from the last document editions are highlighted in orange.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
> CC Co-chairs
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Mark Iliffe-2
Hi All,

I've read the proposal and want to commend the drafting team, it is much more comprehensive and will provide much more guidance to LOCs heading on their journey. I agree with the proposal that the 2022 FOSS4G should be convened in NA, while I am hopeful of heading to Argentina next year (and have willingly supported it through getting a ticket!), I severely doubt that we will be in a place to have the FOSS4G experience as we would have hoped for - but this is my purely personal opinion and offer my full-throated support and endorsement to the efforts of the 2021 FOSS4G and the LOC, however, I believe that the uncertainty will still abide. 

With this in mind, has the Committee considered the longer-term potential impact of not 'balancing the books'? Or should we? As the co-Chair of the Dar es Salaam, our objective was to break even - we scraped it in the final two weeks. With Calgary 2020 down, we're heading into the next iteration of the RoW, with the 'break-even' considered (from my current understanding) as the optimal scenario. Is there a decision point that we need to make here?

Cheers,

Mark



On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 11:45, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I missed any subsequent discussion on this front.

Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022 should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between NA events, 3 years between European events).

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Vasile,

I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to have a
WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding process,
like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process open and
transparent.

Till

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process


Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
> Dear CC members,
>
> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting for a
> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason we kept
> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some decisions
> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on the new
> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
> additions/changes from the last document editions are highlighted in orange.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
> CC Co-chairs
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Till Adams-3
In reply to this post by Peter Batty

Dear Peter,

as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.

The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.

I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we will have on friday.

Till


Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I missed any subsequent discussion on this front.

Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022 should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between NA events, 3 years between European events).

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Vasile,

I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to have a
WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding process,
like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process open and
transparent.

Till

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process


Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
> Dear CC members,
>
> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting for a
> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason we kept
> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some decisions
> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on the new
> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
> additions/changes from the last document editions are highlighted in orange.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
> CC Co-chairs
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Peter Batty
Hi all, 

I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't following the mailing list closely these days.

He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.

So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the question had been discussed.

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Peter,

as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.

The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.

I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we will have on friday.

Till


Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I missed any subsequent discussion on this front.

Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022 should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between NA events, 3 years between European events).

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Vasile,

I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to have a
WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding process,
like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process open and
transparent.

Till

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process


Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
> Dear CC members,
>
> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting for a
> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason we kept
> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some decisions
> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on the new
> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
> additions/changes from the last document editions are highlighted in orange.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
> CC Co-chairs
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

stevenfeldman
I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we consider opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers the best proposal?
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all, 

I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't following the mailing list closely these days.

He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.

So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the question had been discussed.

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Peter,

as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.

The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.

I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we will have on friday.

Till


Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I missed any subsequent discussion on this front.

Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022 should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between NA events, 3 years between European events).

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Vasile,

I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to have a
WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding process,
like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process open and
transparent.

Till

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process


Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
> Dear CC members,
>
> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting for a
> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason we kept
> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some decisions
> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on the new
> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
> additions/changes from the last document editions are highlighted in orange.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
> CC Co-chairs
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Eli Adam
Skipping a year means that it will be longer to return to *some*
region.  Sticking with the existing rotation keeps things going the
same and returns the rotation back to "normal" soonest.

I slightly favor keeping 22 a Europe year, 23 a NA year, and 24 an
Other Regions year.  I'm open to other rotations too, particularly if
someone has a good argument for it or strong feelings.  If finances
require, skipping Other Regions in 24 would make the most sense but we
are a long ways away from that decision.

Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email?  Plan a meeting to
discuss and decide?  Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?  Just
let things continue on the same path and without having taken action
otherwise, the same rotation continues?

Best regards, Eli

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we consider opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers the best proposal?
> ______
> Steven
>
> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
>
> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>
> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't following the mailing list closely these days.
>
> He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.
>
> So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the question had been discussed.
>
> Cheers,
>     Peter.
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Peter,
>>
>> as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.
>>
>> The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.
>>
>> I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we will have on friday.
>>
>> Till
>>
>>
>> Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
>>
>> Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I missed any subsequent discussion on this front.
>>
>> Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022 should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between NA events, 3 years between European events).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>     Peter.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Vasile,
>>>
>>> I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to have a
>>> WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding process,
>>> like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process open and
>>> transparent.
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
>>> > Dear CC members,
>>> >
>>> > It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting for a
>>> > solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
>>> > present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason we kept
>>> > postponing this message). However, it's time to make some decisions
>>> > regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on the new
>>> > proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
>>> > document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
>>> > additions/changes from the last document editions are highlighted in orange.
>>> >
>>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>>> >
>>> > Warm regards,
>>> >
>>> > Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
>>> > CC Co-chairs
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Conference_dev mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Till Adams-3
Hi,

I agree with Eli. I see the point, that of course the turn for NA might
be long - on the other side, I know at least about one team from europe,
that already prepare their bid for 2022 since a year now.

Nevertheless I like the idea of keeping our cycle, as the above might
also be the case for other potential bidders.

If we discuss this or vote on that point, I would suggest to hurry up,
as we are already little late with our call or 2022.

Regards, Till



Am 13.11.20 um 20:32 schrieb Eli Adam:

> Skipping a year means that it will be longer to return to *some*
> region.  Sticking with the existing rotation keeps things going the
> same and returns the rotation back to "normal" soonest.
>
> I slightly favor keeping 22 a Europe year, 23 a NA year, and 24 an
> Other Regions year.  I'm open to other rotations too, particularly if
> someone has a good argument for it or strong feelings.  If finances
> require, skipping Other Regions in 24 would make the most sense but we
> are a long ways away from that decision.
>
> Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email?  Plan a meeting to
> discuss and decide?  Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?  Just
> let things continue on the same path and without having taken action
> otherwise, the same rotation continues?
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we consider opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers the best proposal?
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>>
>> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't following the mailing list closely these days.
>>
>> He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.
>>
>> So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the question had been discussed.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>     Peter.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Dear Peter,
>>>
>>> as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.
>>>
>>> The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.
>>>
>>> I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we will have on friday.
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
>>>
>>> Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I missed any subsequent discussion on this front.
>>>
>>> Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022 should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between NA events, 3 years between European events).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>     Peter.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Vasile,
>>>>
>>>> I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to have a
>>>> WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding process,
>>>> like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process open and
>>>> transparent.
>>>>
>>>> Till
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
>>>>> Dear CC members,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting for a
>>>>> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
>>>>> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason we kept
>>>>> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some decisions
>>>>> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on the new
>>>>> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
>>>>> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
>>>>> additions/changes from the last document editions are highlighted in orange.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
>>>>> CC Co-chairs
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Mark Iliffe-2
In the interest of time, happy to defer and strongly support the broader Conference Committee. To clarify, I too like the idea of remaining in cycle, but wish for the potential economic impact to be considered a bit more. I'd propose the co-chairs and/or Till summarises the pertinent points for the board's decision. Regardless of what happens, I strongly urge the OSGeo to discuss and note the decision for the record. 

Cheers,

Mark

On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 06:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I agree with Eli. I see the point, that of course the turn for NA might
be long - on the other side, I know at least about one team from europe,
that already prepare their bid for 2022 since a year now.

Nevertheless I like the idea of keeping our cycle, as the above might
also be the case for other potential bidders.

If we discuss this or vote on that point, I would suggest to hurry up,
as we are already little late with our call or 2022.

Regards, Till



Am 13.11.20 um 20:32 schrieb Eli Adam:
> Skipping a year means that it will be longer to return to *some*
> region.  Sticking with the existing rotation keeps things going the
> same and returns the rotation back to "normal" soonest.
>
> I slightly favor keeping 22 a Europe year, 23 a NA year, and 24 an
> Other Regions year.  I'm open to other rotations too, particularly if
> someone has a good argument for it or strong feelings.  If finances
> require, skipping Other Regions in 24 would make the most sense but we
> are a long ways away from that decision.
>
> Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email?  Plan a meeting to
> discuss and decide?  Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?  Just
> let things continue on the same path and without having taken action
> otherwise, the same rotation continues?
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we consider opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers the best proposal?
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>>
>> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't following the mailing list closely these days.
>>
>> He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.
>>
>> So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the question had been discussed.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>     Peter.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Dear Peter,
>>>
>>> as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.
>>>
>>> The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.
>>>
>>> I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we will have on friday.
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
>>>
>>> Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I missed any subsequent discussion on this front.
>>>
>>> Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022 should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between NA events, 3 years between European events).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>     Peter.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Vasile,
>>>>
>>>> I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to have a
>>>> WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding process,
>>>> like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process open and
>>>> transparent.
>>>>
>>>> Till
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
>>>>> Dear CC members,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting for a
>>>>> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
>>>>> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason we kept
>>>>> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some decisions
>>>>> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on the new
>>>>> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
>>>>> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
>>>>> additions/changes from the last document editions are highlighted in orange.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
>>>>> CC Co-chairs
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

adams@osgeo.org
Dear CC,

looks like we got stuck here somehow. Maybe we as CC should have a clear
decision first on whether we tzhink that we should have

22 as a

- "NA" year
- "EU" year
- open the call for both

before we involve the board. I wil lsend an email to the board and keep
them updated in our discussion.

Till


Am 16.11.20 um 15:15 schrieb Mark Iliffe:

> In the interest of time, happy to defer and strongly support the broader
> Conference Committee. To clarify, I too like the idea of remaining in
> cycle, but wish for the potential economic impact to be considered a bit
> more. I'd propose the co-chairs and/or Till summarises the pertinent
> points for the board's decision. Regardless of what happens, I strongly
> urge the OSGeo to discuss and note the decision for the record. 
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 06:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I agree with Eli. I see the point, that of course the turn for NA might
>     be long - on the other side, I know at least about one team from europe,
>     that already prepare their bid for 2022 since a year now.
>
>     Nevertheless I like the idea of keeping our cycle, as the above might
>     also be the case for other potential bidders.
>
>     If we discuss this or vote on that point, I would suggest to hurry up,
>     as we are already little late with our call or 2022.
>
>     Regards, Till
>
>
>
>     Am 13.11.20 um 20:32 schrieb Eli Adam:
>     > Skipping a year means that it will be longer to return to *some*
>     > region.  Sticking with the existing rotation keeps things going the
>     > same and returns the rotation back to "normal" soonest.
>     >
>     > I slightly favor keeping 22 a Europe year, 23 a NA year, and 24 an
>     > Other Regions year.  I'm open to other rotations too, particularly if
>     > someone has a good argument for it or strong feelings.  If finances
>     > require, skipping Other Regions in 24 would make the most sense but we
>     > are a long ways away from that decision.
>     >
>     > Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email?  Plan a meeting to
>     > discuss and decide?  Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?  Just
>     > let things continue on the same path and without having taken action
>     > otherwise, the same rotation continues?
>     >
>     > Best regards, Eli
>     >
>     > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Steven Feldman
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >> I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we
>     consider opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers
>     the best proposal?
>     >> ______
>     >> Steven
>     >>
>     >> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>     >>
>     >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>     >>
>     >> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Hi all,
>     >>
>     >> I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't
>     following the mailing list closely these days.
>     >>
>     >> He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that
>     they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He
>     said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned
>     that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.
>     >>
>     >> So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still
>     have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't
>     have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the
>     question had been discussed.
>     >>
>     >> Cheers,
>     >>     Peter.
>     >>
>     >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >>> Dear Peter,
>     >>>
>     >>> as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting
>     we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on
>     keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.
>     >>>
>     >>> The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they
>     feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.
>     >>>
>     >>> I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we
>     will have on friday.
>     >>>
>     >>> Till
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
>     >>>
>     >>> Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the
>     conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there
>     were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North
>     America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and
>     also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary
>     team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to
>     award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to
>     submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary
>     team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably
>     due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I
>     missed any subsequent discussion on this front.
>     >>>
>     >>> Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the
>     right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't
>     want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022
>     should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA
>     events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between
>     NA events, 3 years between European events).
>     >>>
>     >>> Cheers,
>     >>>     Peter.
>     >>>
>     >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >>>> Hi Vasile,
>     >>>>
>     >>>> I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to
>     have a
>     >>>> WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding
>     process,
>     >>>> like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process
>     open and
>     >>>> transparent.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Till
>     >>>>
>     >>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
>     >>>>> Dear CC members,
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting
>     for a
>     >>>>> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
>     >>>>> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason
>     we kept
>     >>>>> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some
>     decisions
>     >>>>> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on
>     the new
>     >>>>> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
>     >>>>> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
>     >>>>> additions/changes from the last document editions are
>     highlighted in orange.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Warm regards,
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
>     >>>>> CC Co-chairs
>     >>>>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >>>>> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     >>>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >>>> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >>> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Conference_dev mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     _______________________________________________
>     Conference_dev mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Peter Batty
I think there is merit in Steven's suggestion of opening the call to both NA and EU. I think there is a possibility we may get fewer proposals than usual as potential organizers may see more risks than there were in pre-Covid days, and opening it to both would mitigate this to some degree. I don't see much downside to doing this.

Cheers,
    Peter. 

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:39 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear CC,

looks like we got stuck here somehow. Maybe we as CC should have a clear
decision first on whether we tzhink that we should have

22 as a

- "NA" year
- "EU" year
- open the call for both

before we involve the board. I wil lsend an email to the board and keep
them updated in our discussion.

Till


Am 16.11.20 um 15:15 schrieb Mark Iliffe:
> In the interest of time, happy to defer and strongly support the broader
> Conference Committee. To clarify, I too like the idea of remaining in
> cycle, but wish for the potential economic impact to be considered a bit
> more. I'd propose the co-chairs and/or Till summarises the pertinent
> points for the board's decision. Regardless of what happens, I strongly
> urge the OSGeo to discuss and note the decision for the record. 
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 06:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I agree with Eli. I see the point, that of course the turn for NA might
>     be long - on the other side, I know at least about one team from europe,
>     that already prepare their bid for 2022 since a year now.
>
>     Nevertheless I like the idea of keeping our cycle, as the above might
>     also be the case for other potential bidders.
>
>     If we discuss this or vote on that point, I would suggest to hurry up,
>     as we are already little late with our call or 2022.
>
>     Regards, Till
>
>
>
>     Am 13.11.20 um 20:32 schrieb Eli Adam:
>     > Skipping a year means that it will be longer to return to *some*
>     > region.  Sticking with the existing rotation keeps things going the
>     > same and returns the rotation back to "normal" soonest.
>     >
>     > I slightly favor keeping 22 a Europe year, 23 a NA year, and 24 an
>     > Other Regions year.  I'm open to other rotations too, particularly if
>     > someone has a good argument for it or strong feelings.  If finances
>     > require, skipping Other Regions in 24 would make the most sense but we
>     > are a long ways away from that decision.
>     >
>     > Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email?  Plan a meeting to
>     > discuss and decide?  Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?  Just
>     > let things continue on the same path and without having taken action
>     > otherwise, the same rotation continues?
>     >
>     > Best regards, Eli
>     >
>     > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Steven Feldman
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >> I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we
>     consider opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers
>     the best proposal?
>     >> ______
>     >> Steven
>     >>
>     >> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>     >>
>     >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>     >>
>     >> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Hi all,
>     >>
>     >> I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't
>     following the mailing list closely these days.
>     >>
>     >> He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that
>     they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He
>     said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned
>     that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.
>     >>
>     >> So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still
>     have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't
>     have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the
>     question had been discussed.
>     >>
>     >> Cheers,
>     >>     Peter.
>     >>
>     >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >>> Dear Peter,
>     >>>
>     >>> as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting
>     we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on
>     keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.
>     >>>
>     >>> The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they
>     feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.
>     >>>
>     >>> I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we
>     will have on friday.
>     >>>
>     >>> Till
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
>     >>>
>     >>> Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the
>     conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there
>     were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North
>     America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and
>     also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary
>     team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to
>     award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to
>     submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary
>     team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably
>     due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I
>     missed any subsequent discussion on this front.
>     >>>
>     >>> Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the
>     right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't
>     want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022
>     should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA
>     events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between
>     NA events, 3 years between European events).
>     >>>
>     >>> Cheers,
>     >>>     Peter.
>     >>>
>     >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >>>> Hi Vasile,
>     >>>>
>     >>>> I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to
>     have a
>     >>>> WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding
>     process,
>     >>>> like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process
>     open and
>     >>>> transparent.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Till
>     >>>>
>     >>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
>     >>>>> Dear CC members,
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting
>     for a
>     >>>>> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
>     >>>>> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason
>     we kept
>     >>>>> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some
>     decisions
>     >>>>> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on
>     the new
>     >>>>> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
>     >>>>> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
>     >>>>> additions/changes from the last document editions are
>     highlighted in orange.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Warm regards,
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
>     >>>>> CC Co-chairs
>     >>>>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >>>>> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     >>>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >>>> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >>> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Conference_dev mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     _______________________________________________
>     Conference_dev mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Mark Iliffe-2
+1 to Peter

On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 12:50, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think there is merit in Steven's suggestion of opening the call to both NA and EU. I think there is a possibility we may get fewer proposals than usual as potential organizers may see more risks than there were in pre-Covid days, and opening it to both would mitigate this to some degree. I don't see much downside to doing this.

Cheers,
    Peter. 

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:39 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear CC,

looks like we got stuck here somehow. Maybe we as CC should have a clear
decision first on whether we tzhink that we should have

22 as a

- "NA" year
- "EU" year
- open the call for both

before we involve the board. I wil lsend an email to the board and keep
them updated in our discussion.

Till


Am 16.11.20 um 15:15 schrieb Mark Iliffe:
> In the interest of time, happy to defer and strongly support the broader
> Conference Committee. To clarify, I too like the idea of remaining in
> cycle, but wish for the potential economic impact to be considered a bit
> more. I'd propose the co-chairs and/or Till summarises the pertinent
> points for the board's decision. Regardless of what happens, I strongly
> urge the OSGeo to discuss and note the decision for the record. 
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 06:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I agree with Eli. I see the point, that of course the turn for NA might
>     be long - on the other side, I know at least about one team from europe,
>     that already prepare their bid for 2022 since a year now.
>
>     Nevertheless I like the idea of keeping our cycle, as the above might
>     also be the case for other potential bidders.
>
>     If we discuss this or vote on that point, I would suggest to hurry up,
>     as we are already little late with our call or 2022.
>
>     Regards, Till
>
>
>
>     Am 13.11.20 um 20:32 schrieb Eli Adam:
>     > Skipping a year means that it will be longer to return to *some*
>     > region.  Sticking with the existing rotation keeps things going the
>     > same and returns the rotation back to "normal" soonest.
>     >
>     > I slightly favor keeping 22 a Europe year, 23 a NA year, and 24 an
>     > Other Regions year.  I'm open to other rotations too, particularly if
>     > someone has a good argument for it or strong feelings.  If finances
>     > require, skipping Other Regions in 24 would make the most sense but we
>     > are a long ways away from that decision.
>     >
>     > Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email?  Plan a meeting to
>     > discuss and decide?  Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?  Just
>     > let things continue on the same path and without having taken action
>     > otherwise, the same rotation continues?
>     >
>     > Best regards, Eli
>     >
>     > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Steven Feldman
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >> I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we
>     consider opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers
>     the best proposal?
>     >> ______
>     >> Steven
>     >>
>     >> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>     >>
>     >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>     >>
>     >> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Hi all,
>     >>
>     >> I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't
>     following the mailing list closely these days.
>     >>
>     >> He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that
>     they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He
>     said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned
>     that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.
>     >>
>     >> So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still
>     have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't
>     have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the
>     question had been discussed.
>     >>
>     >> Cheers,
>     >>     Peter.
>     >>
>     >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >>> Dear Peter,
>     >>>
>     >>> as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting
>     we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on
>     keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.
>     >>>
>     >>> The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they
>     feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.
>     >>>
>     >>> I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we
>     will have on friday.
>     >>>
>     >>> Till
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
>     >>>
>     >>> Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the
>     conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there
>     were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North
>     America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and
>     also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary
>     team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to
>     award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to
>     submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary
>     team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably
>     due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I
>     missed any subsequent discussion on this front.
>     >>>
>     >>> Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the
>     right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't
>     want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022
>     should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA
>     events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between
>     NA events, 3 years between European events).
>     >>>
>     >>> Cheers,
>     >>>     Peter.
>     >>>
>     >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >>>> Hi Vasile,
>     >>>>
>     >>>> I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to
>     have a
>     >>>> WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding
>     process,
>     >>>> like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process
>     open and
>     >>>> transparent.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Till
>     >>>>
>     >>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
>     >>>>> Dear CC members,
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting
>     for a
>     >>>>> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
>     >>>>> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason
>     we kept
>     >>>>> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some
>     decisions
>     >>>>> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on
>     the new
>     >>>>> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
>     >>>>> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
>     >>>>> additions/changes from the last document editions are
>     highlighted in orange.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Warm regards,
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
>     >>>>> CC Co-chairs
>     >>>>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >>>>> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     >>>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >>>> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >>> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>     >> [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Conference_dev mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     _______________________________________________
>     Conference_dev mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Eli Adam
+1 to Peter

That sounds reasonable to me.

Eli

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:58 AM Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> +1 to Peter
>
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 12:50, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I think there is merit in Steven's suggestion of opening the call to both NA and EU. I think there is a possibility we may get fewer proposals than usual as potential organizers may see more risks than there were in pre-Covid days, and opening it to both would mitigate this to some degree. I don't see much downside to doing this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>     Peter.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:39 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear CC,
>>>
>>> looks like we got stuck here somehow. Maybe we as CC should have a clear
>>> decision first on whether we tzhink that we should have
>>>
>>> 22 as a
>>>
>>> - "NA" year
>>> - "EU" year
>>> - open the call for both
>>>
>>> before we involve the board. I wil lsend an email to the board and keep
>>> them updated in our discussion.
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 16.11.20 um 15:15 schrieb Mark Iliffe:
>>> > In the interest of time, happy to defer and strongly support the broader
>>> > Conference Committee. To clarify, I too like the idea of remaining in
>>> > cycle, but wish for the potential economic impact to be considered a bit
>>> > more. I'd propose the co-chairs and/or Till summarises the pertinent
>>> > points for the board's decision. Regardless of what happens, I strongly
>>> > urge the OSGeo to discuss and note the decision for the record.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> >
>>> > Mark
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 06:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>> > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     Hi,
>>> >
>>> >     I agree with Eli. I see the point, that of course the turn for NA might
>>> >     be long - on the other side, I know at least about one team from europe,
>>> >     that already prepare their bid for 2022 since a year now.
>>> >
>>> >     Nevertheless I like the idea of keeping our cycle, as the above might
>>> >     also be the case for other potential bidders.
>>> >
>>> >     If we discuss this or vote on that point, I would suggest to hurry up,
>>> >     as we are already little late with our call or 2022.
>>> >
>>> >     Regards, Till
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     Am 13.11.20 um 20:32 schrieb Eli Adam:
>>> >     > Skipping a year means that it will be longer to return to *some*
>>> >     > region.  Sticking with the existing rotation keeps things going the
>>> >     > same and returns the rotation back to "normal" soonest.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > I slightly favor keeping 22 a Europe year, 23 a NA year, and 24 an
>>> >     > Other Regions year.  I'm open to other rotations too, particularly if
>>> >     > someone has a good argument for it or strong feelings.  If finances
>>> >     > require, skipping Other Regions in 24 would make the most sense but we
>>> >     > are a long ways away from that decision.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email?  Plan a meeting to
>>> >     > discuss and decide?  Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?  Just
>>> >     > let things continue on the same path and without having taken action
>>> >     > otherwise, the same rotation continues?
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Best regards, Eli
>>> >     >
>>> >     > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Steven Feldman
>>> >     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>> >     >> I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we
>>> >     consider opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers
>>> >     the best proposal?
>>> >     >> ______
>>> >     >> Steven
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <[hidden email]
>>> >     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> Hi all,
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't
>>> >     following the mailing list closely these days.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that
>>> >     they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He
>>> >     said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned
>>> >     that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still
>>> >     have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't
>>> >     have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the
>>> >     question had been discussed.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> Cheers,
>>> >     >>     Peter.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>> >     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>> >     >>> Dear Peter,
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>> as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting
>>> >     we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on
>>> >     keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>> The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they
>>> >     feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>> I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we
>>> >     will have on friday.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>> Till
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>> Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>> Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the
>>> >     conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there
>>> >     were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North
>>> >     America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and
>>> >     also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary
>>> >     team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to
>>> >     award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to
>>> >     submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary
>>> >     team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably
>>> >     due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I
>>> >     missed any subsequent discussion on this front.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>> Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the
>>> >     right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't
>>> >     want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022
>>> >     should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA
>>> >     events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between
>>> >     NA events, 3 years between European events).
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>> Cheers,
>>> >     >>>     Peter.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams
>>> >     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>> >     >>>> Hi Vasile,
>>> >     >>>>
>>> >     >>>> I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to
>>> >     have a
>>> >     >>>> WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding
>>> >     process,
>>> >     >>>> like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process
>>> >     open and
>>> >     >>>> transparent.
>>> >     >>>>
>>> >     >>>> Till
>>> >     >>>>
>>> >     >>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>> >     >>>>
>>> >     >>>>
>>> >     >>>> Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
>>> >     >>>>> Dear CC members,
>>> >     >>>>>
>>> >     >>>>> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting
>>> >     for a
>>> >     >>>>> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
>>> >     >>>>> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason
>>> >     we kept
>>> >     >>>>> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some
>>> >     decisions
>>> >     >>>>> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on
>>> >     the new
>>> >     >>>>> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
>>> >     >>>>> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
>>> >     >>>>> additions/changes from the last document editions are
>>> >     highlighted in orange.
>>> >     >>>>>
>>> >     >>>>>
>>> >     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>>> >     >>>>>
>>> >     >>>>> Warm regards,
>>> >     >>>>>
>>> >     >>>>> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
>>> >     >>>>> CC Co-chairs
>>> >     >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >     >>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> >     >>>>> [hidden email]
>>> >     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >     >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> >     >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >     >>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> >     >>>> [hidden email]
>>> >     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >     >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> >     >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >     >>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> >     >>> [hidden email]
>>> >     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> >     >> _______________________________________________
>>> >     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> >     >> [hidden email]
>>> >     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> _______________________________________________
>>> >     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> >     >> [hidden email]
>>> >     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> >     > _______________________________________________
>>> >     > Conference_dev mailing list
>>> >     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> >     _______________________________________________
>>> >     Conference_dev mailing list
>>> >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Conference_dev mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

adams@osgeo.org
Hi,

I would prefer to keep the cycle as is, which would mean Europe in 2022
and NA in 2023.

As said, I know from at least one team, that is working for more than a
year on the expected call for Europe.



Till



Am 18.11.20 um 20:01 schrieb Eli Adam:

> +1 to Peter
>
> That sounds reasonable to me.
>
> Eli
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:58 AM Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to Peter
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 12:50, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think there is merit in Steven's suggestion of opening the call to both NA and EU. I think there is a possibility we may get fewer proposals than usual as potential organizers may see more risks than there were in pre-Covid days, and opening it to both would mitigate this to some degree. I don't see much downside to doing this.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>     Peter.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:39 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear CC,
>>>>
>>>> looks like we got stuck here somehow. Maybe we as CC should have a clear
>>>> decision first on whether we tzhink that we should have
>>>>
>>>> 22 as a
>>>>
>>>> - "NA" year
>>>> - "EU" year
>>>> - open the call for both
>>>>
>>>> before we involve the board. I wil lsend an email to the board and keep
>>>> them updated in our discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Till
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 16.11.20 um 15:15 schrieb Mark Iliffe:
>>>>> In the interest of time, happy to defer and strongly support the broader
>>>>> Conference Committee. To clarify, I too like the idea of remaining in
>>>>> cycle, but wish for the potential economic impact to be considered a bit
>>>>> more. I'd propose the co-chairs and/or Till summarises the pertinent
>>>>> points for the board's decision. Regardless of what happens, I strongly
>>>>> urge the OSGeo to discuss and note the decision for the record.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 06:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>     I agree with Eli. I see the point, that of course the turn for NA might
>>>>>     be long - on the other side, I know at least about one team from europe,
>>>>>     that already prepare their bid for 2022 since a year now.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Nevertheless I like the idea of keeping our cycle, as the above might
>>>>>     also be the case for other potential bidders.
>>>>>
>>>>>     If we discuss this or vote on that point, I would suggest to hurry up,
>>>>>     as we are already little late with our call or 2022.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Regards, Till
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Am 13.11.20 um 20:32 schrieb Eli Adam:
>>>>>     > Skipping a year means that it will be longer to return to *some*
>>>>>     > region.  Sticking with the existing rotation keeps things going the
>>>>>     > same and returns the rotation back to "normal" soonest.
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > I slightly favor keeping 22 a Europe year, 23 a NA year, and 24 an
>>>>>     > Other Regions year.  I'm open to other rotations too, particularly if
>>>>>     > someone has a good argument for it or strong feelings.  If finances
>>>>>     > require, skipping Other Regions in 24 would make the most sense but we
>>>>>     > are a long ways away from that decision.
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email?  Plan a meeting to
>>>>>     > discuss and decide?  Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?  Just
>>>>>     > let things continue on the same path and without having taken action
>>>>>     > otherwise, the same rotation continues?
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Best regards, Eli
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Steven Feldman
>>>>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>     >> I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we
>>>>>     consider opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers
>>>>>     the best proposal?
>>>>>     >> ______
>>>>>     >> Steven
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <[hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Hi all,
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't
>>>>>     following the mailing list closely these days.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that
>>>>>     they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He
>>>>>     said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned
>>>>>     that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still
>>>>>     have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't
>>>>>     have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the
>>>>>     question had been discussed.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Cheers,
>>>>>     >>     Peter.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>     >>> Dear Peter,
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting
>>>>>     we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on
>>>>>     keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they
>>>>>     feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we
>>>>>     will have on friday.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Till
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the
>>>>>     conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there
>>>>>     were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North
>>>>>     America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and
>>>>>     also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary
>>>>>     team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to
>>>>>     award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to
>>>>>     submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary
>>>>>     team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably
>>>>>     due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I
>>>>>     missed any subsequent discussion on this front.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the
>>>>>     right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't
>>>>>     want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022
>>>>>     should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA
>>>>>     events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between
>>>>>     NA events, 3 years between European events).
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Cheers,
>>>>>     >>>     Peter.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams
>>>>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>     >>>> Hi Vasile,
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>> I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to
>>>>>     have a
>>>>>     >>>> WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding
>>>>>     process,
>>>>>     >>>> like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process
>>>>>     open and
>>>>>     >>>> transparent.
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>> Till
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>> Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
>>>>>     >>>>> Dear CC members,
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     >>>>> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting
>>>>>     for a
>>>>>     >>>>> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
>>>>>     >>>>> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason
>>>>>     we kept
>>>>>     >>>>> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some
>>>>>     decisions
>>>>>     >>>>> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on
>>>>>     the new
>>>>>     >>>>> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
>>>>>     >>>>> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
>>>>>     >>>>> additions/changes from the last document editions are
>>>>>     highlighted in orange.
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     >>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     >>>>> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
>>>>>     >>>>> CC Co-chairs
>>>>>     >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >>> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     > _______________________________________________
>>>>>     > Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Peter Batty
Till, this is stating the obvious, but the team you know of in Europe can still bid if we make 2022 open to both Europe and NA, and those on the committee who prefer to keep on the current cycle can weigh that in their evaluation (if we get bids from both sides of the Atlantic). Again, I don't have overly strong views either way, but I think it just gives us more options if we leave it open to both.

I don't think at this point anyone is actively proposing making it only NA for 2022, should we just have a committee vote between the two options of accepting bids for 2022 from Europe only, or from Europe and North America? Do we need any further discussion before we do that?

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:57 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I would prefer to keep the cycle as is, which would mean Europe in 2022
and NA in 2023.

As said, I know from at least one team, that is working for more than a
year on the expected call for Europe.



Till



Am 18.11.20 um 20:01 schrieb Eli Adam:
> +1 to Peter
>
> That sounds reasonable to me.
>
> Eli
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:58 AM Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to Peter
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 12:50, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think there is merit in Steven's suggestion of opening the call to both NA and EU. I think there is a possibility we may get fewer proposals than usual as potential organizers may see more risks than there were in pre-Covid days, and opening it to both would mitigate this to some degree. I don't see much downside to doing this.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>     Peter.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:39 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear CC,
>>>>
>>>> looks like we got stuck here somehow. Maybe we as CC should have a clear
>>>> decision first on whether we tzhink that we should have
>>>>
>>>> 22 as a
>>>>
>>>> - "NA" year
>>>> - "EU" year
>>>> - open the call for both
>>>>
>>>> before we involve the board. I wil lsend an email to the board and keep
>>>> them updated in our discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Till
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 16.11.20 um 15:15 schrieb Mark Iliffe:
>>>>> In the interest of time, happy to defer and strongly support the broader
>>>>> Conference Committee. To clarify, I too like the idea of remaining in
>>>>> cycle, but wish for the potential economic impact to be considered a bit
>>>>> more. I'd propose the co-chairs and/or Till summarises the pertinent
>>>>> points for the board's decision. Regardless of what happens, I strongly
>>>>> urge the OSGeo to discuss and note the decision for the record.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 06:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>     I agree with Eli. I see the point, that of course the turn for NA might
>>>>>     be long - on the other side, I know at least about one team from europe,
>>>>>     that already prepare their bid for 2022 since a year now.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Nevertheless I like the idea of keeping our cycle, as the above might
>>>>>     also be the case for other potential bidders.
>>>>>
>>>>>     If we discuss this or vote on that point, I would suggest to hurry up,
>>>>>     as we are already little late with our call or 2022.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Regards, Till
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Am 13.11.20 um 20:32 schrieb Eli Adam:
>>>>>     > Skipping a year means that it will be longer to return to *some*
>>>>>     > region.  Sticking with the existing rotation keeps things going the
>>>>>     > same and returns the rotation back to "normal" soonest.
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > I slightly favor keeping 22 a Europe year, 23 a NA year, and 24 an
>>>>>     > Other Regions year.  I'm open to other rotations too, particularly if
>>>>>     > someone has a good argument for it or strong feelings.  If finances
>>>>>     > require, skipping Other Regions in 24 would make the most sense but we
>>>>>     > are a long ways away from that decision.
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email?  Plan a meeting to
>>>>>     > discuss and decide?  Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?  Just
>>>>>     > let things continue on the same path and without having taken action
>>>>>     > otherwise, the same rotation continues?
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Best regards, Eli
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Steven Feldman
>>>>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>     >> I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we
>>>>>     consider opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers
>>>>>     the best proposal?
>>>>>     >> ______
>>>>>     >> Steven
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <[hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Hi all,
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't
>>>>>     following the mailing list closely these days.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that
>>>>>     they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He
>>>>>     said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned
>>>>>     that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still
>>>>>     have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't
>>>>>     have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the
>>>>>     question had been discussed.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Cheers,
>>>>>     >>     Peter.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>     >>> Dear Peter,
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting
>>>>>     we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on
>>>>>     keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they
>>>>>     feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we
>>>>>     will have on friday.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Till
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the
>>>>>     conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there
>>>>>     were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North
>>>>>     America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and
>>>>>     also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary
>>>>>     team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to
>>>>>     award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to
>>>>>     submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary
>>>>>     team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably
>>>>>     due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I
>>>>>     missed any subsequent discussion on this front.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the
>>>>>     right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't
>>>>>     want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022
>>>>>     should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA
>>>>>     events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between
>>>>>     NA events, 3 years between European events).
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Cheers,
>>>>>     >>>     Peter.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams
>>>>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>     >>>> Hi Vasile,
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>> I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to
>>>>>     have a
>>>>>     >>>> WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding
>>>>>     process,
>>>>>     >>>> like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process
>>>>>     open and
>>>>>     >>>> transparent.
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>> Till
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>> Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
>>>>>     >>>>> Dear CC members,
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     >>>>> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting
>>>>>     for a
>>>>>     >>>>> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
>>>>>     >>>>> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason
>>>>>     we kept
>>>>>     >>>>> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some
>>>>>     decisions
>>>>>     >>>>> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on
>>>>>     the new
>>>>>     >>>>> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
>>>>>     >>>>> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
>>>>>     >>>>> additions/changes from the last document editions are
>>>>>     highlighted in orange.
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     >>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     >>>>> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
>>>>>     >>>>> CC Co-chairs
>>>>>     >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >>> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     > _______________________________________________
>>>>>     > Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

stevenfeldman
I am in favour of receiving LoIs from both regions and then when we understand the level of interest we can take a view on whether to proceed to the full proposal stage for Europe only or for both regions
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 20 Nov 2020, at 18:28, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:

Till, this is stating the obvious, but the team you know of in Europe can still bid if we make 2022 open to both Europe and NA, and those on the committee who prefer to keep on the current cycle can weigh that in their evaluation (if we get bids from both sides of the Atlantic). Again, I don't have overly strong views either way, but I think it just gives us more options if we leave it open to both.

I don't think at this point anyone is actively proposing making it only NA for 2022, should we just have a committee vote between the two options of accepting bids for 2022 from Europe only, or from Europe and North America? Do we need any further discussion before we do that?

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:57 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I would prefer to keep the cycle as is, which would mean Europe in 2022
and NA in 2023.

As said, I know from at least one team, that is working for more than a
year on the expected call for Europe.



Till



Am 18.11.20 um 20:01 schrieb Eli Adam:
> +1 to Peter
>
> That sounds reasonable to me.
>
> Eli
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:58 AM Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to Peter
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 12:50, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think there is merit in Steven's suggestion of opening the call to both NA and EU. I think there is a possibility we may get fewer proposals than usual as potential organizers may see more risks than there were in pre-Covid days, and opening it to both would mitigate this to some degree. I don't see much downside to doing this.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>     Peter.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:39 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear CC,
>>>>
>>>> looks like we got stuck here somehow. Maybe we as CC should have a clear
>>>> decision first on whether we tzhink that we should have
>>>>
>>>> 22 as a
>>>>
>>>> - "NA" year
>>>> - "EU" year
>>>> - open the call for both
>>>>
>>>> before we involve the board. I wil lsend an email to the board and keep
>>>> them updated in our discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Till
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 16.11.20 um 15:15 schrieb Mark Iliffe:
>>>>> In the interest of time, happy to defer and strongly support the broader
>>>>> Conference Committee. To clarify, I too like the idea of remaining in
>>>>> cycle, but wish for the potential economic impact to be considered a bit
>>>>> more. I'd propose the co-chairs and/or Till summarises the pertinent
>>>>> points for the board's decision. Regardless of what happens, I strongly
>>>>> urge the OSGeo to discuss and note the decision for the record.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 06:07, Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>     I agree with Eli. I see the point, that of course the turn for NA might
>>>>>     be long - on the other side, I know at least about one team from europe,
>>>>>     that already prepare their bid for 2022 since a year now.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Nevertheless I like the idea of keeping our cycle, as the above might
>>>>>     also be the case for other potential bidders.
>>>>>
>>>>>     If we discuss this or vote on that point, I would suggest to hurry up,
>>>>>     as we are already little late with our call or 2022.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Regards, Till
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Am 13.11.20 um 20:32 schrieb Eli Adam:
>>>>>     > Skipping a year means that it will be longer to return to *some*
>>>>>     > region.  Sticking with the existing rotation keeps things going the
>>>>>     > same and returns the rotation back to "normal" soonest.
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > I slightly favor keeping 22 a Europe year, 23 a NA year, and 24 an
>>>>>     > Other Regions year.  I'm open to other rotations too, particularly if
>>>>>     > someone has a good argument for it or strong feelings.  If finances
>>>>>     > require, skipping Other Regions in 24 would make the most sense but we
>>>>>     > are a long ways away from that decision.
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email?  Plan a meeting to
>>>>>     > discuss and decide?  Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?  Just
>>>>>     > let things continue on the same path and without having taken action
>>>>>     > otherwise, the same rotation continues?
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Best regards, Eli
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:08 AM Steven Feldman
>>>>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>     >> I can see benefit in making 22 a North America year, should we
>>>>>     consider opening 22 to both Europe and NA and seeing which offers
>>>>>     the best proposal?
>>>>>     >> ______
>>>>>     >> Steven
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org>
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> On 12 Nov 2020, at 19:35, Peter Batty <[hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Hi all,
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> I decided to email Jon Neufeld directly, just in case he wasn't
>>>>>     following the mailing list closely these days.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> He replied and thanked me for checking in with him, but said that
>>>>>     they would pass on the possibility of hosting in Calgary in 2022. He
>>>>>     said that in addition to the team drifting apart, he was concerned
>>>>>     that traditional conferences may well still be struggling in 2022.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> So anyway, we can take the Calgary option off the table. I still
>>>>>     have a slight leaning towards doing 2022 in North America, but don't
>>>>>     have overly strong opinions on it. I just wanted to make sure the
>>>>>     question had been discussed.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Cheers,
>>>>>     >>     Peter.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>     >>> Dear Peter,
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> as far as I understood, we discussed this also during a meeting
>>>>>     we had with CC and the board some weeks ago. I think we agreed on
>>>>>     keep our cycle "as is", which means, that 2021 will be held in Europe.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> The Calgary team denied to re-organize the event in 2022 as they
>>>>>     feared not to keep their team together, but maybe I remember wrong.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> I re-put this topic also on the agenda of our board meeting we
>>>>>     will have on friday.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Till
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Am 10.11.20 um 17:44 schrieb Peter Batty:
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Hi all, just looking back on the email threads, in the
>>>>>     conversation around the cancellation of the Calgary event, there
>>>>>     were some suggestions that the 2022 event should be held in North
>>>>>     America, so we don't go so long without having an event there, and
>>>>>     also that we should offer the right of first refusal to the Calgary
>>>>>     team, so if they wanted to run the 2022 event we could elect to
>>>>>     award it to them without a competitive RFP (probably subject to
>>>>>     submitting some updated plans for review). At the time the Calgary
>>>>>     team weren't sure if they would want to do it again, understandably
>>>>>     due to the situation, but they didn't rule it out. I don't know if I
>>>>>     missed any subsequent discussion on this front.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Personally I would support first offering the Calgary team the
>>>>>     right of first refusal on the 2022 event. If they decide they don't
>>>>>     want to do it, then we need to decide whether the location for 2022
>>>>>     should be North America (which means we would go 5 years between NA
>>>>>     events, 4 years between European events) or Europe (6 years between
>>>>>     NA events, 3 years between European events).
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Cheers,
>>>>>     >>>     Peter.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:20 AM Till Adams
>>>>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>     >>>> Hi Vasile,
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>> I added just two comments. In general I woulde also suggest to
>>>>>     have a
>>>>>     >>>> WIKI page with just the most important infos about the bidding
>>>>>     process,
>>>>>     >>>> like we had in the past [1]. This in order to keep the process
>>>>>     open and
>>>>>     >>>> transparent.
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>> Till
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2021_Bid_Process
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>>
>>>>>     >>>> Am 09.11.20 um 23:31 schrieb Vasile Craciunescu:
>>>>>     >>>>> Dear CC members,
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     >>>>> It's true, these days the world is holding its breath waiting
>>>>>     for a
>>>>>     >>>>> solution to the current COVID-19 pandemic. It's also true that the
>>>>>     >>>>> present offers no certainties for the near future (the reason
>>>>>     we kept
>>>>>     >>>>> postponing this message). However, it's time to make some
>>>>>     decisions
>>>>>     >>>>> regarding FOSS4G2022. Therefore, we kindly ask your opinion on
>>>>>     the new
>>>>>     >>>>> proposed draft for the FOSS4G2022 bid. Please take a look at the
>>>>>     >>>>> document and add your comments/suggestions. The important
>>>>>     >>>>> additions/changes from the last document editions are
>>>>>     highlighted in orange.
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P3OJpJeC6LrWR7lpboBEHVdR7tihsid7a6wDIZOixZA/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     >>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>>     >>>>>
>>>>>     >>>>> Vasile & Msilikale - with kind support from Steven.
>>>>>     >>>>> CC Co-chairs
>>>>>     >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >>> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>     >> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     >> [hidden email]
>>>>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     > _______________________________________________
>>>>>     > Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Eli Adam
To the extent that the Conference Committee makes formal motions and
decisions, Peter made a motion; Peter, Mark, Eli, and Steven voted for
the motion; Till voted against the motion; and having two days elapse,
I'm declaring the motion passed.  2022 LoIs will be open to Europe and
North America.

As a side note, we could be slightly more formal in our processes and
decision making which would make things more clear.

Best regards, Eli

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:45 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I am in favour of receiving LoIs from both regions and then when we understand the level of interest we can take a view on whether to proceed to the full proposal stage for Europe only or for both regions
> ______
> Steven
>
> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
>
> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>
> On 20 Nov 2020, at 18:28, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Till, this is stating the obvious, but the team you know of in Europe can still bid if we make 2022 open to both Europe and NA, and those on the committee who prefer to keep on the current cycle can weigh that in their evaluation (if we get bids from both sides of the Atlantic). Again, I don't have overly strong views either way, but I think it just gives us more options if we leave it open to both.
>
> I don't think at this point anyone is actively proposing making it only NA for 2022, should we just have a committee vote between the two options of accepting bids for 2022 from Europe only, or from Europe and North America? Do we need any further discussion before we do that?
>
> Cheers,
>     Peter.
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:57 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would prefer to keep the cycle as is, which would mean Europe in 2022
>> and NA in 2023.
>>
>> As said, I know from at least one team, that is working for more than a
>> year on the expected call for Europe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Till
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 18.11.20 um 20:01 schrieb Eli Adam:
>> > +1 to Peter
>> >
>> > That sounds reasonable to me.
>> >
>> > Eli
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:58 AM Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1 to Peter
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 12:50, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I think there is merit in Steven's suggestion of opening the call to both NA and EU. I think there is a possibility we may get fewer proposals than usual as potential organizers may see more risks than there were in pre-Covid days, and opening it to both would mitigate this to some degree. I don't see much downside to doing this.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>>     Peter.
>> >>>
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

adams@osgeo.org
Dear Eli,

sorry, I do not agree with your way of bringing things forward. Calling
out a vote is for me at least, giving it a week for people to decide on
it. Normally members of CC call out a vote "officially" - which id not
happen in my eyes -- OR  I did not see that Peter officiall declared a
motion (in the past this was often marked as "motion" in the title).

Perhaps it would be fair, if we would call it an offical vote, before
setting a deadlines ?


Till








Am 20.11.20 um 20:45 schrieb Eli Adam:

> To the extent that the Conference Committee makes formal motions and
> decisions, Peter made a motion; Peter, Mark, Eli, and Steven voted for
> the motion; Till voted against the motion; and having two days elapse,
> I'm declaring the motion passed.  2022 LoIs will be open to Europe and
> North America.
>
> As a side note, we could be slightly more formal in our processes and
> decision making which would make things more clear.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:45 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I am in favour of receiving LoIs from both regions and then when we understand the level of interest we can take a view on whether to proceed to the full proposal stage for Europe only or for both regions
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
>>
>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2020, at 18:28, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Till, this is stating the obvious, but the team you know of in Europe can still bid if we make 2022 open to both Europe and NA, and those on the committee who prefer to keep on the current cycle can weigh that in their evaluation (if we get bids from both sides of the Atlantic). Again, I don't have overly strong views either way, but I think it just gives us more options if we leave it open to both.
>>
>> I don't think at this point anyone is actively proposing making it only NA for 2022, should we just have a committee vote between the two options of accepting bids for 2022 from Europe only, or from Europe and North America? Do we need any further discussion before we do that?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>     Peter.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:57 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would prefer to keep the cycle as is, which would mean Europe in 2022
>>> and NA in 2023.
>>>
>>> As said, I know from at least one team, that is working for more than a
>>> year on the expected call for Europe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 18.11.20 um 20:01 schrieb Eli Adam:
>>>> +1 to Peter
>>>>
>>>> That sounds reasonable to me.
>>>>
>>>> Eli
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:58 AM Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 12:50, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think there is merit in Steven's suggestion of opening the call to both NA and EU. I think there is a possibility we may get fewer proposals than usual as potential organizers may see more risks than there were in pre-Covid days, and opening it to both would mitigate this to some degree. I don't see much downside to doing this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>     Peter.
>>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft RfP FOSS4G2022

Eli Adam
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:41 PM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear Eli,
>
> sorry, I do not agree with your way of bringing things forward. Calling
> out a vote is for me at least, giving it a week for people to decide on
> it. Normally members of CC call out a vote "officially" - which id not

I agree wholeheartedly!  The committee's "decision process" is
entirely casual.  I've chastised the committee for this repeatedly
over the years to apparently little effect.  Our decision making
problem isn't news to me.  I think it would be nice to improve our
decision making process but have found little consensus or interest in
that.  To the extent that we have a decision making process, it is
here, https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Decisions,
which specifies two business days.

> happen in my eyes -- OR  I did not see that Peter officiall declared a
> motion (in the past this was often marked as "motion" in the title).

No official motion was declared but it seems about as close as we get.

>
> Perhaps it would be fair, if we would call it an offical vote, before
> setting a deadlines ?

Sure, call a motion and herd the cats to voting.  Good examples of
proper motions give people something to follow.  I was looking with an
eye towards the schedule in the RFP (and your own request that we were
getting late):

Request for Proposals released
2020-11-02

Stage 1
Letters of Intent submitted to Conference Mailing List by 2400 GMT
2020-11-23

>
>
> Till
>
>
> Am 20.11.20 um 20:45 schrieb Eli Adam:
> > To the extent that the Conference Committee makes formal motions and
> > decisions, Peter made a motion; Peter, Mark, Eli, and Steven voted for
> > the motion; Till voted against the motion; and having two days elapse,
> > I'm declaring the motion passed.  2022 LoIs will be open to Europe and
> > North America.
> >
> > As a side note, we could be slightly more formal in our processes and
> > decision making which would make things more clear.

^^More of me chastising our casual decision process.

Previously I suggested other decision making processes since in my
opinion getting the CC to make a proper decision is fairly cumbersome
and difficult.

"Do we want to discuss further? Vote by email?  Plan a meeting to
discuss and decide?  Defer to Vasile & Msilikale as co-chairs?  Just
let things continue on the same path and without having taken action
otherwise, the same rotation continues?"

If either of the committee co-chairs want to offer procedural
guidance, that would be fine too and I defer to them.

Mostly in agreement and trying to work with what we have, Eli

p.s. I voted for this because other people suggested it and it does
take a more cautious approach without any undue burden or unfairness
on potential LOCs.  Personally, I prefer keeping the same rotation and
will vote on LOIs and full proposals using that as one of my criteria.

> >
> > Best regards, Eli
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:45 AM Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am in favour of receiving LoIs from both regions and then when we understand the level of interest we can take a view on whether to proceed to the full proposal stage for Europe only or for both regions
> >> ______
> >> Steven
> >>
> >> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
> >>
> >> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
> >>
> >> On 20 Nov 2020, at 18:28, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Till, this is stating the obvious, but the team you know of in Europe can still bid if we make 2022 open to both Europe and NA, and those on the committee who prefer to keep on the current cycle can weigh that in their evaluation (if we get bids from both sides of the Atlantic). Again, I don't have overly strong views either way, but I think it just gives us more options if we leave it open to both.
> >>
> >> I don't think at this point anyone is actively proposing making it only NA for 2022, should we just have a committee vote between the two options of accepting bids for 2022 from Europe only, or from Europe and North America? Do we need any further discussion before we do that?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>     Peter.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:57 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I would prefer to keep the cycle as is, which would mean Europe in 2022
> >>> and NA in 2023.
> >>>
> >>> As said, I know from at least one team, that is working for more than a
> >>> year on the expected call for Europe.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Till
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 18.11.20 um 20:01 schrieb Eli Adam:
> >>>> +1 to Peter
> >>>>
> >>>> That sounds reasonable to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Eli
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:58 AM Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1 to Peter
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 12:50, Peter Batty <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think there is merit in Steven's suggestion of opening the call to both NA and EU. I think there is a possibility we may get fewer proposals than usual as potential organizers may see more risks than there were in pre-Covid days, and opening it to both would mitigate this to some degree. I don't see much downside to doing this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>     Peter.
> >>>>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
12