TGP's in 2019

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

TGP's in 2019

Till Adams-3
Dear CC!

We just got the confirmation from the board, that we have 25k US $ in
2019 for our Travel Grant Programmes.

The idea is, that we want to dedicate 50-60% of this to the TGP of the
global event (so this year for Bucharest - in case they apply for a TGP
;-)).

The idea for the rest of the money is to give out a call to the
community, that regional events can apply also for some TGP funding,
given that they accept the application criteria (as defined in [1]).

I'd like to push out that call quite fast and give a 3 or 4 week
timeframe for organizers to apply. This gives every event owner the same
chance and we do not have a "first comes, first serves" - which
definetely would prefer events, that takeplace earlier in the year... .

In case we have more requests than money, we need a clear and
transparent decision process, which is the main task I fear.

Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?


So far, I wish you all a nice weekend!

Till



[1] Steven and John Bryant workd hard on a draft of the application
criteria
(here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit?usp=sharing)
It will go live on the OSGeo wiki over the weekend.

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

Re: TGP's in 2019

Eli Adam
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 6:07 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Dear CC!
>
> We just got the confirmation from the board, that we have 25k US $ in
> 2019 for our Travel Grant Programmes.
>
> The idea is, that we want to dedicate 50-60% of this to the TGP of the
> global event (so this year for Bucharest - in case they apply for a TGP
> ;-)).
>
> The idea for the rest of the money is to give out a call to the
> community, that regional events can apply also for some TGP funding,
> given that they accept the application criteria (as defined in [1]).

[1] is a great work and covers the topic well.

>
> I'd like to push out that call quite fast and give a 3 or 4 week
> timeframe for organizers to apply. This gives every event owner the same
> chance and we do not have a "first comes, first serves" - which
> definetely would prefer events, that takeplace earlier in the year... .
>
> In case we have more requests than money, we need a clear and
> transparent decision process, which is the main task I fear.
>
> Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?

Vaguely take the total funds and divide by the total approximate
attendance and allocate that way.  An event with ~400 attendees will
get twice as much as ~200 attendees.

Best regards, Eli

>
>
> So far, I wish you all a nice weekend!
>
> Till
>
>
>
> [1] Steven and John Bryant workd hard on a draft of the application
> criteria
> (here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit?usp=sharing)
> It will go live on the OSGeo wiki over the weekend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: TGP's in 2019

Till Adams-3
Hi Eli,

good idea. I do not expect to get hundreds of applications, so that may
work ;-)

Cheers, Till

Am 08.02.19 um 17:12 schrieb Eli Adam:

> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 6:07 AM Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear CC!
>>
>> We just got the confirmation from the board, that we have 25k US $ in
>> 2019 for our Travel Grant Programmes.
>>
>> The idea is, that we want to dedicate 50-60% of this to the TGP of the
>> global event (so this year for Bucharest - in case they apply for a TGP
>> ;-)).
>>
>> The idea for the rest of the money is to give out a call to the
>> community, that regional events can apply also for some TGP funding,
>> given that they accept the application criteria (as defined in [1]).
> [1] is a great work and covers the topic well.
>
>> I'd like to push out that call quite fast and give a 3 or 4 week
>> timeframe for organizers to apply. This gives every event owner the same
>> chance and we do not have a "first comes, first serves" - which
>> definetely would prefer events, that takeplace earlier in the year... .
>>
>> In case we have more requests than money, we need a clear and
>> transparent decision process, which is the main task I fear.
>>
>> Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?
> Vaguely take the total funds and divide by the total approximate
> attendance and allocate that way.  An event with ~400 attendees will
> get twice as much as ~200 attendees.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>>
>> So far, I wish you all a nice weekend!
>>
>> Till
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] Steven and John Bryant workd hard on a draft of the application
>> criteria
>> (here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit?usp=sharing)
>> It will go live on the OSGeo wiki over the weekend.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: TGP's in 2019

Jonathan Moules-4
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
 >  Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?

I'd suggest one criterion for the decision is to prioritise sustainable
forms of transport. I.e. flying would be last, trains first.
For official EU numbers:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view

Cheers,
Jonathan

On 2019-02-08 14:07, Till Adams wrote:

> Dear CC!
>
> We just got the confirmation from the board, that we have 25k US $ in
> 2019 for our Travel Grant Programmes.
>
> The idea is, that we want to dedicate 50-60% of this to the TGP of the
> global event (so this year for Bucharest - in case they apply for a TGP
> ;-)).
>
> The idea for the rest of the money is to give out a call to the
> community, that regional events can apply also for some TGP funding,
> given that they accept the application criteria (as defined in [1]).
>
> I'd like to push out that call quite fast and give a 3 or 4 week
> timeframe for organizers to apply. This gives every event owner the same
> chance and we do not have a "first comes, first serves" - which
> definetely would prefer events, that takeplace earlier in the year... .
>
> In case we have more requests than money, we need a clear and
> transparent decision process, which is the main task I fear.
>
> Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?
>
>
> So far, I wish you all a nice weekend!
>
> Till
>
>
>
> [1] Steven and John Bryant workd hard on a draft of the application
> criteria
> (here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit?usp=sharing)
> It will go live on the OSGeo wiki over the weekend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: TGP's in 2019

Mark Iliffe-2
I would counsel that we prioritise grants to those where we are underrepresented in both economic and gender terms - see the OECD Development Assistance Countries list [1]. While trains can be useful in the short term, we need to really consider the balance between being environmentally conscious and bringing those from the frontier of where we need to be and have the most impact. This will be achieved through empowering those through the TGP.  In less diplomatic terms, if we're not going to hold conferences with more regularity in SSE Asia, Latin American and the Caribbean, and Africa, we need to facilitate their travel to Europe and North America - that will mean flights 99% of the time.

Just my $0.02...


On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 10:13, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:
 >  Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?

I'd suggest one criterion for the decision is to prioritise sustainable
forms of transport. I.e. flying would be last, trains first.
For official EU numbers:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view

Cheers,
Jonathan

On 2019-02-08 14:07, Till Adams wrote:
> Dear CC!
>
> We just got the confirmation from the board, that we have 25k US $ in
> 2019 for our Travel Grant Programmes.
>
> The idea is, that we want to dedicate 50-60% of this to the TGP of the
> global event (so this year for Bucharest - in case they apply for a TGP
> ;-)).
>
> The idea for the rest of the money is to give out a call to the
> community, that regional events can apply also for some TGP funding,
> given that they accept the application criteria (as defined in [1]).
>
> I'd like to push out that call quite fast and give a 3 or 4 week
> timeframe for organizers to apply. This gives every event owner the same
> chance and we do not have a "first comes, first serves" - which
> definetely would prefer events, that takeplace earlier in the year... .
>
> In case we have more requests than money, we need a clear and
> transparent decision process, which is the main task I fear.
>
> Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?
>
>
> So far, I wish you all a nice weekend!
>
> Till
>
>
>
> [1] Steven and John Bryant workd hard on a draft of the application
> criteria
> (here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit?usp=sharing)
> It will go live on the OSGeo wiki over the weekend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: TGP's in 2019

Amanda Taub
I completely agree.

Amanda H.S. Taub, GISP 
Central Washington GIS User Group  (CWGIS) Organizer 

Washington URISA (WAURISA) Marketing Volunteer
Marketing Lead for 2019 Washington GIS Conference 
URISA Marketing Committee Volunteer
URISA Social Media Work Group Chair
FOSS4G 2020 Calgary Local Organizing Committee  (LOC) Program Co-Lead
 



On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:07 AM Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would counsel that we prioritise grants to those where we are underrepresented in both economic and gender terms - see the OECD Development Assistance Countries list [1]. While trains can be useful in the short term, we need to really consider the balance between being environmentally conscious and bringing those from the frontier of where we need to be and have the most impact. This will be achieved through empowering those through the TGP.  In less diplomatic terms, if we're not going to hold conferences with more regularity in SSE Asia, Latin American and the Caribbean, and Africa, we need to facilitate their travel to Europe and North America - that will mean flights 99% of the time.

Just my $0.02...


On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 10:13, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:
 >  Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?

I'd suggest one criterion for the decision is to prioritise sustainable
forms of transport. I.e. flying would be last, trains first.
For official EU numbers:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view

Cheers,
Jonathan

On 2019-02-08 14:07, Till Adams wrote:
> Dear CC!
>
> We just got the confirmation from the board, that we have 25k US $ in
> 2019 for our Travel Grant Programmes.
>
> The idea is, that we want to dedicate 50-60% of this to the TGP of the
> global event (so this year for Bucharest - in case they apply for a TGP
> ;-)).
>
> The idea for the rest of the money is to give out a call to the
> community, that regional events can apply also for some TGP funding,
> given that they accept the application criteria (as defined in [1]).
>
> I'd like to push out that call quite fast and give a 3 or 4 week
> timeframe for organizers to apply. This gives every event owner the same
> chance and we do not have a "first comes, first serves" - which
> definetely would prefer events, that takeplace earlier in the year... .
>
> In case we have more requests than money, we need a clear and
> transparent decision process, which is the main task I fear.
>
> Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?
>
>
> So far, I wish you all a nice weekend!
>
> Till
>
>
>
> [1] Steven and John Bryant workd hard on a draft of the application
> criteria
> (here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit?usp=sharing)
> It will go live on the OSGeo wiki over the weekend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: TGP's in 2019

delawen
One thing that we have discussed offline but not really promoted yet online is to try to have more regional conferences everywhere so the TGP can be more efficient. 

El lun., 11 feb. 2019 17:14, Amanda Taub <[hidden email]> escribió:
I completely agree.

Amanda H.S. Taub, GISP 
Central Washington GIS User Group  (CWGIS) Organizer 

Washington URISA (WAURISA) Marketing Volunteer
Marketing Lead for 2019 Washington GIS Conference 
URISA Marketing Committee Volunteer
URISA Social Media Work Group Chair
FOSS4G 2020 Calgary Local Organizing Committee  (LOC) Program Co-Lead
 



On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:07 AM Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would counsel that we prioritise grants to those where we are underrepresented in both economic and gender terms - see the OECD Development Assistance Countries list [1]. While trains can be useful in the short term, we need to really consider the balance between being environmentally conscious and bringing those from the frontier of where we need to be and have the most impact. This will be achieved through empowering those through the TGP.  In less diplomatic terms, if we're not going to hold conferences with more regularity in SSE Asia, Latin American and the Caribbean, and Africa, we need to facilitate their travel to Europe and North America - that will mean flights 99% of the time.

Just my $0.02...


On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 10:13, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:
 >  Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?

I'd suggest one criterion for the decision is to prioritise sustainable
forms of transport. I.e. flying would be last, trains first.
For official EU numbers:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view

Cheers,
Jonathan

On 2019-02-08 14:07, Till Adams wrote:
> Dear CC!
>
> We just got the confirmation from the board, that we have 25k US $ in
> 2019 for our Travel Grant Programmes.
>
> The idea is, that we want to dedicate 50-60% of this to the TGP of the
> global event (so this year for Bucharest - in case they apply for a TGP
> ;-)).
>
> The idea for the rest of the money is to give out a call to the
> community, that regional events can apply also for some TGP funding,
> given that they accept the application criteria (as defined in [1]).
>
> I'd like to push out that call quite fast and give a 3 or 4 week
> timeframe for organizers to apply. This gives every event owner the same
> chance and we do not have a "first comes, first serves" - which
> definetely would prefer events, that takeplace earlier in the year... .
>
> In case we have more requests than money, we need a clear and
> transparent decision process, which is the main task I fear.
>
> Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?
>
>
> So far, I wish you all a nice weekend!
>
> Till
>
>
>
> [1] Steven and John Bryant workd hard on a draft of the application
> criteria
> (here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit?usp=sharing)
> It will go live on the OSGeo wiki over the weekend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: TGP's in 2019

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by Mark Iliffe-2


On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:07 AM Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would counsel that we prioritise grants to those where we are underrepresented in both economic and gender terms - see the OECD Development Assistance Countries list [1]. While trains can be useful in the short term, we need to really consider the balance between being environmentally conscious and bringing those from the frontier of where we need to be and have the most impact. This will be achieved through empowering those through the TGP.  In less diplomatic terms, if we're not going to hold conferences with more regularity in SSE Asia, Latin American and the Caribbean, and Africa, we need to facilitate their travel to Europe and North America - that will mean flights 99% of the time.

Just my $0.02...


On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 10:13, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:
 >  Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?

I'd suggest one criterion for the decision is to prioritise sustainable
forms of transport. I.e. flying would be last, trains first.
For official EU numbers:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view

Cheers,
Jonathan

Right now, both of these are criteria that will be set by the LOC running that individual TGP.  See details in https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Travel_Grant_Programme_Cookbook

Eli
 

On 2019-02-08 14:07, Till Adams wrote:
> Dear CC!
>
> We just got the confirmation from the board, that we have 25k US $ in
> 2019 for our Travel Grant Programmes.
>
> The idea is, that we want to dedicate 50-60% of this to the TGP of the
> global event (so this year for Bucharest - in case they apply for a TGP
> ;-)).
>
> The idea for the rest of the money is to give out a call to the
> community, that regional events can apply also for some TGP funding,
> given that they accept the application criteria (as defined in [1]).
>
> I'd like to push out that call quite fast and give a 3 or 4 week
> timeframe for organizers to apply. This gives every event owner the same
> chance and we do not have a "first comes, first serves" - which
> definetely would prefer events, that takeplace earlier in the year... .
>
> In case we have more requests than money, we need a clear and
> transparent decision process, which is the main task I fear.
>
> Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?
>
>
> So far, I wish you all a nice weekend!
>
> Till
>
>
>
> [1] Steven and John Bryant workd hard on a draft of the application
> criteria
> (here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit?usp=sharing)
> It will go live on the OSGeo wiki over the weekend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: TGP's in 2019

JonathanNeufeld

To me this is the point of a TGP – to assist under-represented groups, and/or those who can’t otherwise attend an event be able to travel.

 

Cheers,

Jon  

 

From: Conference_dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Eli Adam
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 9:24 AM
To: Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]>
Cc: Conference Dev <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] TGP's in 2019

 

 

 

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:07 AM Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would counsel that we prioritise grants to those where we are underrepresented in both economic and gender terms - see the OECD Development Assistance Countries list [1]. While trains can be useful in the short term, we need to really consider the balance between being environmentally conscious and bringing those from the frontier of where we need to be and have the most impact. This will be achieved through empowering those through the TGP.  In less diplomatic terms, if we're not going to hold conferences with more regularity in SSE Asia, Latin American and the Caribbean, and Africa, we need to facilitate their travel to Europe and North America - that will mean flights 99% of the time.

 

Just my $0.02...

 

 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 10:13, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:

 >  Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?

I'd suggest one criterion for the decision is to prioritise sustainable
forms of transport. I.e. flying would be last, trains first.
For official EU numbers:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view

Cheers,
Jonathan

 

Right now, both of these are criteria that will be set by the LOC running that individual TGP.  See details in https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Travel_Grant_Programme_Cookbook

 

Eli

 


On 2019-02-08 14:07, Till Adams wrote:
> Dear CC!
>
> We just got the confirmation from the board, that we have 25k US $ in
> 2019 for our Travel Grant Programmes.
>
> The idea is, that we want to dedicate 50-60% of this to the TGP of the
> global event (so this year for Bucharest - in case they apply for a TGP
> ;-)).
>
> The idea for the rest of the money is to give out a call to the
> community, that regional events can apply also for some TGP funding,
> given that they accept the application criteria (as defined in [1]).
>
> I'd like to push out that call quite fast and give a 3 or 4 week
> timeframe for organizers to apply. This gives every event owner the same
> chance and we do not have a "first comes, first serves" - which
> definetely would prefer events, that takeplace earlier in the year... .
>
> In case we have more requests than money, we need a clear and
> transparent decision process, which is the main task I fear.
>
> Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?
>
>
> So far, I wish you all a nice weekend!
>
> Till
>
>
>
> [1] Steven and John Bryant workd hard on a draft of the application
> criteria
> (here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit?usp=sharing)
> It will go live on the OSGeo wiki over the weekend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: TGP's in 2019

Jonathan Moules-4
In reply to this post by Mark Iliffe-2

An excellent point, but I'd like to highlight that everyone has a "good reason" for why *they* should be flying. Unfortunately the end result is a Tragedy of the Commons[1] where everyone has exempted themselves because they're "special" and their reason is "just". Consequence: Global air travel persists in rising [2].

In less diplomatic terms, and simplified down, which is more important: Forcing more women into FOSS GIS (although again, diversity is about more than gender), or a planet where those women's grandchildren will have less climate change consequences to contend with?

Personally I don't think the value of attending any conference is worth a flight. Especially as FOSS4G gets video'd these days (which is great and something more conferences should do!). That just leaves "networking", and if you're throwing several tons of CO2 into the upper atmosphere just to network...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/193533/growth-of-global-air-traffic-passenger-demand/

On 2019-02-11 16:06, Mark Iliffe wrote:
I would counsel that we prioritise grants to those where we are underrepresented in both economic and gender terms - see the OECD Development Assistance Countries list [1]. While trains can be useful in the short term, we need to really consider the balance between being environmentally conscious and bringing those from the frontier of where we need to be and have the most impact. This will be achieved through empowering those through the TGP.  In less diplomatic terms, if we're not going to hold conferences with more regularity in SSE Asia, Latin American and the Caribbean, and Africa, we need to facilitate their travel to Europe and North America - that will mean flights 99% of the time.

Just my $0.02...


On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 10:13, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:
 >  Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?

I'd suggest one criterion for the decision is to prioritise sustainable
forms of transport. I.e. flying would be last, trains first.
For official EU numbers:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view

Cheers,
Jonathan

On 2019-02-08 14:07, Till Adams wrote:
> Dear CC!
>
> We just got the confirmation from the board, that we have 25k US $ in
> 2019 for our Travel Grant Programmes.
>
> The idea is, that we want to dedicate 50-60% of this to the TGP of the
> global event (so this year for Bucharest - in case they apply for a TGP
> ;-)).
>
> The idea for the rest of the money is to give out a call to the
> community, that regional events can apply also for some TGP funding,
> given that they accept the application criteria (as defined in [1]).
>
> I'd like to push out that call quite fast and give a 3 or 4 week
> timeframe for organizers to apply. This gives every event owner the same
> chance and we do not have a "first comes, first serves" - which
> definetely would prefer events, that takeplace earlier in the year... .
>
> In case we have more requests than money, we need a clear and
> transparent decision process, which is the main task I fear.
>
> Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?
>
>
> So far, I wish you all a nice weekend!
>
> Till
>
>
>
> [1] Steven and John Bryant workd hard on a draft of the application
> criteria
> (here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit?usp=sharing)
> It will go live on the OSGeo wiki over the weekend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: TGP's in 2019

stevenfeldman
In reply to this post by Mark Iliffe-2
I 10,000% are with Mark free increasing diversity and encouraging underrepresented groups. 

We get the most bang for our buck by helping more people who live relatively near whose costs of travel will be lower and who also may be able to travel by train but that should not be our main driver

Steven
07958 924 101

On 11 Feb 2019, at 18:06, Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would counsel that we prioritise grants to those where we are underrepresented in both economic and gender terms - see the OECD Development Assistance Countries list [1]. While trains can be useful in the short term, we need to really consider the balance between being environmentally conscious and bringing those from the frontier of where we need to be and have the most impact. This will be achieved through empowering those through the TGP.  In less diplomatic terms, if we're not going to hold conferences with more regularity in SSE Asia, Latin American and the Caribbean, and Africa, we need to facilitate their travel to Europe and North America - that will mean flights 99% of the time.

Just my $0.02...


On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 10:13, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:
 >  Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?

I'd suggest one criterion for the decision is to prioritise sustainable
forms of transport. I.e. flying would be last, trains first.
For official EU numbers:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view

Cheers,
Jonathan

On 2019-02-08 14:07, Till Adams wrote:
> Dear CC!
>
> We just got the confirmation from the board, that we have 25k US $ in
> 2019 for our Travel Grant Programmes.
>
> The idea is, that we want to dedicate 50-60% of this to the TGP of the
> global event (so this year for Bucharest - in case they apply for a TGP
> ;-)).
>
> The idea for the rest of the money is to give out a call to the
> community, that regional events can apply also for some TGP funding,
> given that they accept the application criteria (as defined in [1]).
>
> I'd like to push out that call quite fast and give a 3 or 4 week
> timeframe for organizers to apply. This gives every event owner the same
> chance and we do not have a "first comes, first serves" - which
> definetely would prefer events, that takeplace earlier in the year... .
>
> In case we have more requests than money, we need a clear and
> transparent decision process, which is the main task I fear.
>
> Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?
>
>
> So far, I wish you all a nice weekend!
>
> Till
>
>
>
> [1] Steven and John Bryant workd hard on a draft of the application
> criteria
> (here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit?usp=sharing)
> It will go live on the OSGeo wiki over the weekend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: TGP's in 2019

Mark Iliffe-2
A solution to this is more local conferences, but that pump needs to be primed. I would also disagree that we're forcing women to do anything. From Dar es Salaam, we actually ran two rounds of the TGP as we felt that we didn't get the best results the first time around. By running two rounds, we massively increased the number of women that applied and recieved grants (I'm in the process of drawing the stats on this - but from memory about 20% in the first round were women - but after hammering it in the second it went up to 80%). We also directly adjusted our grant amounts based on location to foster non-flying options... our second round attendees actually commandeered a bus and effectively had a FOSS4G Dar caravan from Kamapla, Uganda, through Nairobi, Kenya onwards to Dar. I guarantee this bus wasn't eco-friendly and it would have been safer to fly (which is another consideration!). We also basically offered a free ticket to those that came back to us and said "I can get there, but can't afford the conference fee" - in East Africa, bus and a hostel was around $150, we spent the majority of the money (~100 TGP awardees) on local, non-plane travel too.

We need to be also cognizant that video recording is challenging on two points - firstly, do the areas where we want impact have the bandwidth to download/view them and is anyone watching them? One of the decisions I made in the chair* was to commit the money that would have gone to video recording to the TGP. This increased networking opportunities for those that have never been to a FOSS4G to engage with our community. I look to future events and if they are like the male dominated events that I attended when I started off in my career I severely doubt we'll have any change with the broader issues that we face. Some points distilled here:
  • Efforts need to be made, made again, and then redoubled to increase diversity. If that means 80% of the first round is by men, then go again. We didn't make as good as an effort the first time around. Part of round two was having a dedicated TGP Director, not spread between people;
  • We need to be in places were we aren't currently - if we're not, then what's the point?;
  • We need to consider the circumstances of many in developing economies. We cannot presume or let our privilege get in the way of unleashing the true potential with whoever is out there. Networking is and becoming part of the community I would place above content and if this means supporting airplane travel, so be it - also see [1]


On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 11:34, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:
I 10,000% are with Mark free increasing diversity and encouraging underrepresented groups. 

We get the most bang for our buck by helping more people who live relatively near whose costs of travel will be lower and who also may be able to travel by train but that should not be our main driver

Steven
07958 924 101

On 11 Feb 2019, at 18:06, Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would counsel that we prioritise grants to those where we are underrepresented in both economic and gender terms - see the OECD Development Assistance Countries list [1]. While trains can be useful in the short term, we need to really consider the balance between being environmentally conscious and bringing those from the frontier of where we need to be and have the most impact. This will be achieved through empowering those through the TGP.  In less diplomatic terms, if we're not going to hold conferences with more regularity in SSE Asia, Latin American and the Caribbean, and Africa, we need to facilitate their travel to Europe and North America - that will mean flights 99% of the time.

Just my $0.02...


On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 10:13, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:
 >  Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?

I'd suggest one criterion for the decision is to prioritise sustainable
forms of transport. I.e. flying would be last, trains first.
For official EU numbers:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view

Cheers,
Jonathan

On 2019-02-08 14:07, Till Adams wrote:
> Dear CC!
>
> We just got the confirmation from the board, that we have 25k US $ in
> 2019 for our Travel Grant Programmes.
>
> The idea is, that we want to dedicate 50-60% of this to the TGP of the
> global event (so this year for Bucharest - in case they apply for a TGP
> ;-)).
>
> The idea for the rest of the money is to give out a call to the
> community, that regional events can apply also for some TGP funding,
> given that they accept the application criteria (as defined in [1]).
>
> I'd like to push out that call quite fast and give a 3 or 4 week
> timeframe for organizers to apply. This gives every event owner the same
> chance and we do not have a "first comes, first serves" - which
> definetely would prefer events, that takeplace earlier in the year... .
>
> In case we have more requests than money, we need a clear and
> transparent decision process, which is the main task I fear.
>
> Any comments on this or ideas on how to define a decision process?
>
>
> So far, I wish you all a nice weekend!
>
> Till
>
>
>
> [1] Steven and John Bryant workd hard on a draft of the application
> criteria
> (here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit?usp=sharing)
> It will go live on the OSGeo wiki over the weekend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: TGP's in 2019

adam steer-2
Hi Conference dev folks

I wrote and deleted a long post which said effectively +1 to Mark’s comments. The very short version is that air travel is pretty much the only way to get around much of Oceania, and as such needs to be an option (cruise ships are another, but very dirty also).

I’m struggling a little with Eli’s idea of funding based on expected conference attendance. Again, in Oceania conferences might not be huge but TGP support costs are high. I’d preference assessment on a case by case basis (ie the conference LOC puts up a proposal, it is assessed - but proposals all have to be submitted in the open), with maybe some work to develop guidelines around ‘if you live in region X, plan around cost Y per TGP funded attendee’. Of course, this is prima facie unfair because it’s a lot cheaper to support a TGP attendee in Tanzania than it is in Oceania. Food for thought/further discussion.

…and of course, a fine rebuttal would be ‘work harder on sponsorship/fundraising! There’s money in the region, extract it!'

Cheers

Adam




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

Re: TGP's in 2019

Eli Adam


On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 1:31 PM adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Conference dev folks

I wrote and deleted a long post which said effectively +1 to Mark’s comments. The very short version is that air travel is pretty much the only way to get around much of Oceania, and as such needs to be an option (cruise ships are another, but very dirty also).

+1 to a lot of what Mark said.  Mark (and the Dar LOC) certainly set a high standard for what the TGP can be.  I was certainly glad to help a little bit on that process (and seeing how much the TGP had grown since some of our efforts in PDX was humbling - nice work).  But again these are criteria that will be set by the LOC running that individual TGP.


I’m struggling a little with Eli’s idea of funding based on expected conference attendance. Again, in Oceania conferences might not be huge but TGP support costs are high. I’d preference assessment on a case by case basis (ie the conference LOC puts up a proposal, it is assessed - but proposals all have to be submitted in the open), with maybe some work to develop guidelines around ‘if you live in region X, plan around cost Y per TGP funded attendee’. Of course, this is prima facie unfair because it’s a lot cheaper to support a TGP attendee in Tanzania than it is in Oceania. Food for thought/further discussion.

My suggestion was intended as a general starting guideline and not intended as rigid.  

Oceania (or other regions) can certainly make their case for why their portion should be multiplied by Z.  

Also, different regions may be able to support a different number of TGP recipients based on various factors.  I've made cases for TGP recipients very near (and costing very little) as well as very distant with poor transportation connectivity (and costing a sizable portion of the total TGP but there were not going to be closer/easier FOSS4G events for them in the near future, but maybe they would be the seed that grows FOSS4G there).  

Hopefully we take a reasonable approach that is open to reason, revision, and flexibility and gets better over time. 

Best regards, Eli

 

…and of course, a fine rebuttal would be ‘work harder on sponsorship/fundraising! There’s money in the region, extract it!'

Cheers

Adam



_______________________________________________
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: TGP's in 2019

Till Adams-3

Dear list!

Great to get so much feedback - that was my intention ...;-). OSGeo's CC is alive!

I will try to figure out a draft based on all the comments today or tomorrow. Maybe we decouple the call for TGP and the decision process. We can discuss the 2nd and then setup a chapter on the WIKI.

Till



Am 11.02.19 um 23:42 schrieb Eli Adam:


On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 1:31 PM adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Conference dev folks

I wrote and deleted a long post which said effectively +1 to Mark’s comments. The very short version is that air travel is pretty much the only way to get around much of Oceania, and as such needs to be an option (cruise ships are another, but very dirty also).

+1 to a lot of what Mark said.  Mark (and the Dar LOC) certainly set a high standard for what the TGP can be.  I was certainly glad to help a little bit on that process (and seeing how much the TGP had grown since some of our efforts in PDX was humbling - nice work).  But again these are criteria that will be set by the LOC running that individual TGP.


I’m struggling a little with Eli’s idea of funding based on expected conference attendance. Again, in Oceania conferences might not be huge but TGP support costs are high. I’d preference assessment on a case by case basis (ie the conference LOC puts up a proposal, it is assessed - but proposals all have to be submitted in the open), with maybe some work to develop guidelines around ‘if you live in region X, plan around cost Y per TGP funded attendee’. Of course, this is prima facie unfair because it’s a lot cheaper to support a TGP attendee in Tanzania than it is in Oceania. Food for thought/further discussion.

My suggestion was intended as a general starting guideline and not intended as rigid.  

Oceania (or other regions) can certainly make their case for why their portion should be multiplied by Z.  

Also, different regions may be able to support a different number of TGP recipients based on various factors.  I've made cases for TGP recipients very near (and costing very little) as well as very distant with poor transportation connectivity (and costing a sizable portion of the total TGP but there were not going to be closer/easier FOSS4G events for them in the near future, but maybe they would be the seed that grows FOSS4G there).  

Hopefully we take a reasonable approach that is open to reason, revision, and flexibility and gets better over time. 

Best regards, Eli

 

…and of course, a fine rebuttal would be ‘work harder on sponsorship/fundraising! There’s money in the region, extract it!'

Cheers

Adam



_______________________________________________
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: TGP's in 2019

Cameron Shorter

Till, I provided feedback into the Google Docs version (now more recent than the wiki):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit

I now only have read access so can't show history and show diff between versions. (Hopefully you can).

Re travel grant recipients, I think there are a few different profiles of people we want to attract:

1. People who will be inspired to go back into their communities and become agents of change, after they have connected with like minded people at foss4g. (Maybe by setting up a local or regional FOSS4G).

2. "The lone hacker" - who has been doing amazing stuff by themselves, and who we can bring to foss4g to meet the rest of their team, and who might be able to inspire others.

3. The diversity gap person. Helping balance out power imbalances by helping to empower the less empowered groups.

4. ... and probably more ...

We should be considering the "Return on Investment" for each of these different criteria, for each person we consider. As mentioned by Adam, each region has different profiles for this "Return on Investment" equation which we should respect and support.

On 12/2/19 6:39 pm, Till Adams wrote:

Dear list!

Great to get so much feedback - that was my intention ...;-). OSGeo's CC is alive!

I will try to figure out a draft based on all the comments today or tomorrow. Maybe we decouple the call for TGP and the decision process. We can discuss the 2nd and then setup a chapter on the WIKI.

Till



Am 11.02.19 um 23:42 schrieb Eli Adam:


On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 1:31 PM adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Conference dev folks

I wrote and deleted a long post which said effectively +1 to Mark’s comments. The very short version is that air travel is pretty much the only way to get around much of Oceania, and as such needs to be an option (cruise ships are another, but very dirty also).

+1 to a lot of what Mark said.  Mark (and the Dar LOC) certainly set a high standard for what the TGP can be.  I was certainly glad to help a little bit on that process (and seeing how much the TGP had grown since some of our efforts in PDX was humbling - nice work).  But again these are criteria that will be set by the LOC running that individual TGP.


I’m struggling a little with Eli’s idea of funding based on expected conference attendance. Again, in Oceania conferences might not be huge but TGP support costs are high. I’d preference assessment on a case by case basis (ie the conference LOC puts up a proposal, it is assessed - but proposals all have to be submitted in the open), with maybe some work to develop guidelines around ‘if you live in region X, plan around cost Y per TGP funded attendee’. Of course, this is prima facie unfair because it’s a lot cheaper to support a TGP attendee in Tanzania than it is in Oceania. Food for thought/further discussion.

My suggestion was intended as a general starting guideline and not intended as rigid.  

Oceania (or other regions) can certainly make their case for why their portion should be multiplied by Z.  

Also, different regions may be able to support a different number of TGP recipients based on various factors.  I've made cases for TGP recipients very near (and costing very little) as well as very distant with poor transportation connectivity (and costing a sizable portion of the total TGP but there were not going to be closer/easier FOSS4G events for them in the near future, but maybe they would be the seed that grows FOSS4G there).  

Hopefully we take a reasonable approach that is open to reason, revision, and flexibility and gets better over time. 

Best regards, Eli

 

…and of course, a fine rebuttal would be ‘work harder on sponsorship/fundraising! There’s money in the region, extract it!'

Cheers

Adam



_______________________________________________
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
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

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

Re: TGP's in 2019

K.Bott
As one of the people who designed / ran the 2014 travel grant program -- it's great to see this continuing as a part of conferences going forward.

re: Cameron's comments -- I'd submit that the "diversity gap" is present in all profiles of people, and that it's important to consider both the work being done ("lone hacker") or the future leading (e.g. local FOSS4G),  and also *who* is doing the work / who is doing the leading, as that helps shape the future community both at the conference and at home.

And, again -- having run one of these, I know it's a complex web of decisions / factors. Thank you all for continuing to put time, funds, and thought behind making FOSS4G more accessible, and the OSGeo community stronger (diversity = strength).

cheers
-k.bott


On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:34 AM Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

Till, I provided feedback into the Google Docs version (now more recent than the wiki):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit

I now only have read access so can't show history and show diff between versions. (Hopefully you can).

Re travel grant recipients, I think there are a few different profiles of people we want to attract:

1. People who will be inspired to go back into their communities and become agents of change, after they have connected with like minded people at foss4g. (Maybe by setting up a local or regional FOSS4G).

2. "The lone hacker" - who has been doing amazing stuff by themselves, and who we can bring to foss4g to meet the rest of their team, and who might be able to inspire others.

3. The diversity gap person. Helping balance out power imbalances by helping to empower the less empowered groups.

4. ... and probably more ...

We should be considering the "Return on Investment" for each of these different criteria, for each person we consider. As mentioned by Adam, each region has different profiles for this "Return on Investment" equation which we should respect and support.

On 12/2/19 6:39 pm, Till Adams wrote:

Dear list!

Great to get so much feedback - that was my intention ...;-). OSGeo's CC is alive!

I will try to figure out a draft based on all the comments today or tomorrow. Maybe we decouple the call for TGP and the decision process. We can discuss the 2nd and then setup a chapter on the WIKI.

Till



Am 11.02.19 um 23:42 schrieb Eli Adam:


On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 1:31 PM adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Conference dev folks

I wrote and deleted a long post which said effectively +1 to Mark’s comments. The very short version is that air travel is pretty much the only way to get around much of Oceania, and as such needs to be an option (cruise ships are another, but very dirty also).

+1 to a lot of what Mark said.  Mark (and the Dar LOC) certainly set a high standard for what the TGP can be.  I was certainly glad to help a little bit on that process (and seeing how much the TGP had grown since some of our efforts in PDX was humbling - nice work).  But again these are criteria that will be set by the LOC running that individual TGP.


I’m struggling a little with Eli’s idea of funding based on expected conference attendance. Again, in Oceania conferences might not be huge but TGP support costs are high. I’d preference assessment on a case by case basis (ie the conference LOC puts up a proposal, it is assessed - but proposals all have to be submitted in the open), with maybe some work to develop guidelines around ‘if you live in region X, plan around cost Y per TGP funded attendee’. Of course, this is prima facie unfair because it’s a lot cheaper to support a TGP attendee in Tanzania than it is in Oceania. Food for thought/further discussion.

My suggestion was intended as a general starting guideline and not intended as rigid.  

Oceania (or other regions) can certainly make their case for why their portion should be multiplied by Z.  

Also, different regions may be able to support a different number of TGP recipients based on various factors.  I've made cases for TGP recipients very near (and costing very little) as well as very distant with poor transportation connectivity (and costing a sizable portion of the total TGP but there were not going to be closer/easier FOSS4G events for them in the near future, but maybe they would be the seed that grows FOSS4G there).  

Hopefully we take a reasonable approach that is open to reason, revision, and flexibility and gets better over time. 

Best regards, Eli

 

…and of course, a fine rebuttal would be ‘work harder on sponsorship/fundraising! There’s money in the region, extract it!'

Cheers

Adam



_______________________________________________
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
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254
_______________________________________________
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: TGP's in 2019

stevenfeldman
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
We need to be conscious of the likely volume of applicants for the global event, selection criteria have to enable selectors to reduce ca 180-200 applicants by 80-85% 

For regional events the numbers are smaller and selectors can have more personalised  flexibility
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 12 Feb 2019, at 20:34, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

Till, I provided feedback into the Google Docs version (now more recent than the wiki):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzu9z_4BRMzCc5y9SsE7--GnShL30kPGnh7gXlqJspQ/edit

I now only have read access so can't show history and show diff between versions. (Hopefully you can).

Re travel grant recipients, I think there are a few different profiles of people we want to attract:

1. People who will be inspired to go back into their communities and become agents of change, after they have connected with like minded people at foss4g. (Maybe by setting up a local or regional FOSS4G).

2. "The lone hacker" - who has been doing amazing stuff by themselves, and who we can bring to foss4g to meet the rest of their team, and who might be able to inspire others.

3. The diversity gap person. Helping balance out power imbalances by helping to empower the less empowered groups.

4. ... and probably more ...

We should be considering the "Return on Investment" for each of these different criteria, for each person we consider. As mentioned by Adam, each region has different profiles for this "Return on Investment" equation which we should respect and support.

On 12/2/19 6:39 pm, Till Adams wrote:

Dear list!

Great to get so much feedback - that was my intention ...;-). OSGeo's CC is alive!

I will try to figure out a draft based on all the comments today or tomorrow. Maybe we decouple the call for TGP and the decision process. We can discuss the 2nd and then setup a chapter on the WIKI.

Till



Am 11.02.19 um 23:42 schrieb Eli Adam:


On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 1:31 PM adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Conference dev folks

I wrote and deleted a long post which said effectively +1 to Mark’s comments. The very short version is that air travel is pretty much the only way to get around much of Oceania, and as such needs to be an option (cruise ships are another, but very dirty also).

+1 to a lot of what Mark said.  Mark (and the Dar LOC) certainly set a high standard for what the TGP can be.  I was certainly glad to help a little bit on that process (and seeing how much the TGP had grown since some of our efforts in PDX was humbling - nice work).  But again these are criteria that will be set by the LOC running that individual TGP.


I’m struggling a little with Eli’s idea of funding based on expected conference attendance. Again, in Oceania conferences might not be huge but TGP support costs are high. I’d preference assessment on a case by case basis (ie the conference LOC puts up a proposal, it is assessed - but proposals all have to be submitted in the open), with maybe some work to develop guidelines around ‘if you live in region X, plan around cost Y per TGP funded attendee’. Of course, this is prima facie unfair because it’s a lot cheaper to support a TGP attendee in Tanzania than it is in Oceania. Food for thought/further discussion.

My suggestion was intended as a general starting guideline and not intended as rigid.  

Oceania (or other regions) can certainly make their case for why their portion should be multiplied by Z.  

Also, different regions may be able to support a different number of TGP recipients based on various factors.  I've made cases for TGP recipients very near (and costing very little) as well as very distant with poor transportation connectivity (and costing a sizable portion of the total TGP but there were not going to be closer/easier FOSS4G events for them in the near future, but maybe they would be the seed that grows FOSS4G there).  

Hopefully we take a reasonable approach that is open to reason, revision, and flexibility and gets better over time. 

Best regards, Eli

 

…and of course, a fine rebuttal would be ‘work harder on sponsorship/fundraising! There’s money in the region, extract it!'

Cheers

Adam



_______________________________________________
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
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254
_______________________________________________
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: TGP's in 2019

John Bryant

Cameron: Till, I provided feedback into the Google Docs version (now more recent than the wiki)

Hi Cameron, I've incorporated almost all of your suggestions into the latest version of the wiki, so it should be in sync with the Google doc.

I'm not sure of the best way to go forward with collaborative editing here... the Google doc is IMHO far superior for group editing, but the wiki is the master. It's a little bit convoluted to port the G doc to the wiki, requires some manual handling to maintain formatting.

I turned off the ability for anyone to comment on the Google doc so that it's not a matter of repeatedly (manually) re-formatting the same content, and also potentially ending up with a versioning problem where edits are being made in 2 places. But it would be great to figure out a collaborative process that works for everybody? Is there a norm here?


Steven: We need to be conscious of the likely volume of applicants for the global event, selection criteria have to enable selectors to reduce ca 180-200 applicants by 80-85% 
For regional events the numbers are smaller and selectors can have more personalised  flexibility

For reference, the Oceania 2018 TGP received about 45 applications despite a fairly rushed intake. As we develop our regional program this will likely increase, but this is still going to be a modest number compared to, say, what FOSS4G Asia might face (with a vastly larger population).


Cheers
John

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

Re: TGP's in 2019

adam steer-2
John - the TGP cookbook might need a content manager/curator, which you and Steven seem to have self-selected for. Anyone can still edit the wiki pages if they have an OSGeo wiki account - but it seems the type of document which needs a curator (anyone can suggest change, but curators put to discussion and implement the result). I see there’s a ‘discussion’ tab on the wiki page - have other parts of OSGeo used that effectively?

Cheers, and great work all.



On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 09:49, John Bryant <[hidden email]> wrote:

Cameron: Till, I provided feedback into the Google Docs version (now more recent than the wiki)

Hi Cameron, I've incorporated almost all of your suggestions into the latest version of the wiki, so it should be in sync with the Google doc.

I'm not sure of the best way to go forward with collaborative editing here... the Google doc is IMHO far superior for group editing, but the wiki is the master. It's a little bit convoluted to port the G doc to the wiki, requires some manual handling to maintain formatting.

I turned off the ability for anyone to comment on the Google doc so that it's not a matter of repeatedly (manually) re-formatting the same content, and also potentially ending up with a versioning problem where edits are being made in 2 places. But it would be great to figure out a collaborative process that works for everybody? Is there a norm here?


Steven: We need to be conscious of the likely volume of applicants for the global event, selection criteria have to enable selectors to reduce ca 180-200 applicants by 80-85% 
For regional events the numbers are smaller and selectors can have more personalised  flexibility

For reference, the Oceania 2018 TGP received about 45 applications despite a fairly rushed intake. As we develop our regional program this will likely increase, but this is still going to be a modest number compared to, say, what FOSS4G Asia might face (with a vastly larger population).


Cheers
John
_______________________________________________
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