++1 Il gio 13 gen 2022, 07:46 Jeroen Ticheler via Discuss < discuss@lists.osgeo.org> ha scritto:
> +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 > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://podcasts.apple.com/be/podcast/ivan-sanchez-the-politics-of-geo/id1500132553?i%3D1000545491911&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw0HczaX1JTy1E1sCQY3Wn5m>". > 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 >> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34426/EGR20.pdf?sequence%3D1%26isAllowed%3Dy&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw04GkLj5fj80j3OMp5HGq6z> >> ). 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/ >> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/how-much-worlds-population-has-flown-airplane-180957719/&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw11quhr8roq2R6tiIlEnrdW> >> ). >> >> >> > 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 >>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ivan.sanchezortega.es&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw34iUYZh1VuYamUS-VTOepd> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> <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 >>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss&source=gmail-imap&ust=1642644890000000&usg=AOvVaw247H2c7SvMC3XD-oMsSUV6> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing >> listDiscuss@lists.osgeo.orghttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> <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 >> <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://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