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