Hi all, I prefer option 1.
If this poll was asked just after FOSS4G Seoul 2015, I would have selected option 2 without any hesitations. However I now realize that I, LOC members, and local community had learned a lot by going through the difficulties of preparing the event altogether. That experience was very unique, invaluable and is now one of driving force of vibrant activity of OSGeo Korean chapter. Community driven FOSS4G with help from PCO is not so bad model, I think. Kind regards, 신상희 --- Shin, Sanghee Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company www.gaia3d.com<http://www.gaia3d.com> ------ Original Message ------ From: "michael terner" <terner...@gmail.com<mailto:terner...@gmail.com>> To: "Steven Feldman" <shfeld...@gmail.com<mailto:shfeld...@gmail.com>> Cc: "OSGeo-Conf" <conference_...@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_...@lists.osgeo.org>>; "OSGeo Discussions" <discuss@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org>>; "Massimiliano Cannata" <massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch<mailto:massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch>>; "Eli Adam" <ea...@co.lincoln.or.us<mailto:ea...@co.lincoln.or.us>> Sent: 2022-02-06 오전 6:09:42 Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some continuity of organization and management +2 for considering change There's definitely room to consider continual improvements for the conference process, as the world, and our community has evolved considerably over the last few years. No easy solutions, but lots to think about. Eli starting this thread with an "informal poll" makes complete sense. The Committee is simply doing it's job of helping the Board to manage and promote the conference activity. We don't get to make decisions by ourselves, but generating ideas is certainly part of the mandate. And, as others have said, if the board disagrees with a proposal/idea, they do not have to approve it. MT On Fri, Feb 4, 2022, 6:02 AM Steven Feldman <shfeld...@gmail.com<mailto:shfeld...@gmail.com>> wrote: +2 from me Everyone is welcome to participate in the conversation about changes to the organisation of FOSS4G, then the Conference Ctee should vote and make a recommendation (or recommendations) to the Board and the Board should decide. Our organisational model is that the charter members elect the board and the board then makes decisions on their behalf, if CM’s don’t agree with board decisions they have the option to vote in a new board, we do not have a direct voting or referendum system where CM’s are consulted on individual decisions. ______ Steven Unusual maps in strange places - mappery.org<http://mappery.org> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild<http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>” newsletter On 4 Feb 2022, at 09:01, Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.tiche...@geocat.net<mailto:jeroen.tiche...@geocat.net>> wrote: Hi Maxi, Thanks! I completely agree with those type of changes indeed. It makes sense we have a list of scenario’s forward and have a vote on that by the community. For what the membership of the conference committee is concerned, I left simply because of the supposed/imposed barrier of not having been a conference chair, although I didn’t agree with that at all. Didn’t feel like fighting over it though. It would be better to make membership voluntary just like other committees. Possibly approved by the board or charter members. Cheers, Jeroen [https://www.geocat.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/GeoCat.png]<https://www.geocat.net/> Jeroen Ticheler Mobile: +31681286572 E-mail: jeroen.tiche...@geocat.net<mailto:jeroen.tiche...@geocat.net> https://www.geocat.net<https://www.geocat.net/> Veenderweg 13 6721 WD Bennekom The Netherlands Tel: +31318416664 On 4 Feb 2022, 09:02 +0100, Massimiliano Cannata <massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch<mailto:massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch>>, wrote: Dear Jeroen, Thanks for your considerations. I wasn't proposing to extend the evaluation of proposals to the whole community. I understand a dedicated committee should do this (even though I believe a part of the evaluation of a proposal could be assigned by votes of the community, maybe 10%?). My point is that decisions of changing the organisation of the FOSS4G cannot be done without the involvement of the whole community. It's not about changing the evaluation process, it's about deciding for example to have a fixed location, to completely leave it to an external company, to pay the committee members to do it, to have it online or in person, to cancel the global and keep only to local conference... Another point is that so far there's the assumption that only organizer of previous FOSS4G have the competence to understand technical matters. That's quite aleatory and in no other committee there is such an entry barrier... If you didn't play in NBA you cannot be a good coach? Can a government self-elect his members? What about innovation, new ideas and other experiences, or we're just close in our FOSS4G past events experience... Because only if you run a global conference you have the competence... Sorry to be long, and this is not personal at all, I just like being inclusive and have empowered participatory approach.. All the best, Maxi Il gio 3 feb 2022, 17:04 Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.tiche...@geocat.net<mailto:jeroen.tiche...@geocat.net>> ha scritto: Hi Maxi, Thanks for sharing your view on this. Although I sympathize with the idea of a whole community having a say in how conference locations is selected and organized, I’m not in favor of the process you propose. Reading LOI’s and full proposals takes a lot of time and voting a lot of thought and discussion. It really helps to have previous conference organizers on the committee as well. At the same time I also think the committee should be open to other members (I used to be a member long time ago while I never chaired a conference, and I don’t think that mattered honestly). Concluding, I think selecting a conference / proposal should be taken care of by the committee, not by all charter members or the whole community. Maybe the board or the charter members should decide for an elected committee similar to what we already do with the board elections. Cheers, Jeroen [https://www.geocat.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/GeoCat.png]<https://www.geocat.net/> Jeroen Ticheler Mobile: +31681286572 E-mail: jeroen.tiche...@geocat.net<mailto:jeroen.tiche...@geocat.net> https://www.geocat.net<https://www.geocat.net/> Veenderweg 13 6721 WD Bennekom The Netherlands Tel: +31318416664 On 3 Feb 2022, 16:15 +0100, Massimiliano Cannata <massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch<mailto:massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch>>, wrote: Dear conference community, why is the community left out from this decision / discussion? The FOSS4G conference is a property of OSGeo, and therefore of the community as a whole. The conference committee has not been elected so cannot decide in representation of the community. As an OPEN community I strongly believe that all the charter members (at least) should have a word or vote on such an important decision. I hope this message is not ignored.. Maxi Il giorno gio 3 feb 2022 alle ore 15:04 Eli Adam <ea...@co.lincoln.or.us<mailto:ea...@co.lincoln.or.us>> ha scritto: Hi all (particularly voting committee members), The current FOSS4G structure has a new LOC every year starting more or less from scratch (some things like mailing lists and seed money are passed on). Over the years, many people have commented on the load of work this creates for the LOC, the general inefficiency, the risk, and the burnout. If you consider yourself a voting member of the committee (https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members), please indicate your preference on this. This is an informal poll to see if the conference committee wants to: 1. Keep it the way it is and not change anything 2. Change the FOSS4G organizing structure to something else (discussion of what we change it to can come later if people want to pursue this). As I've expressed several times, I prefer option 2, changing the FOSS4G organizing structure. Thanks for your time and participation. Best regards, Eli _______________________________________________ Conference_dev mailing list conference_...@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_...@lists.osgeo.org> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev -- Massimiliano Cannata Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica Responsabile settore Geomatica Istituto scienze della Terra Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana Campus Mendrisio, Via Flora Ruchat-Roncati 15 CH – 6850 Mendrisio Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14 Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09 massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch<mailto:massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch> www.supsi.ch/ist<http://www.supsi.ch/ist> _______________________________________________ Conference_dev mailing list conference_...@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_...@lists.osgeo.org> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev _______________________________________________ Conference_dev mailing list conference_...@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_...@lists.osgeo.org> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev _______________________________________________ Conference_dev mailing list conference_...@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_...@lists.osgeo.org> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev _______________________________________________ Conference_dev mailing list conference_...@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:conference_...@lists.osgeo.org> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
