Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Conf] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some continuity of organization and management

[Bruce Bannerman via Discuss]

Well said Sanghee.

As a former member of the LOC for FOSS4G-2009 I agree with the local community 
development argument, though in our case it led to a lot of burn-out.

There is also the practicality of finding a conference organiser that can 
operate effectively anywhere in the world.

Should the alternate approach go through, significant thought also needs to go 
into the procurement process to avoid the very real potential for corruption.

Kind regards,

Bruce

> On 9 Feb 2022, at 01:28, 신상희 via Discuss  wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> -- Original Message --
> From: "michael terner" 
> To: "Steven Feldman" 
> Cc: "OSGeo-Conf" ; "OSGeo Discussions" 
> ; "Massimiliano Cannata" 
> ; "Eli Adam" 
> 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  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
>>> 
>>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>>> 
 On 4 Feb 2022, at 09:01, Jeroen Ticheler  
 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
 
 
 Jeroen Ticheler
 Mobile: +31681286572
 E-mail: jeroen.tiche...@geocat.net
 https://www.geocat.net
 Veenderweg 13
 6721 WD Bennekom
 The Netherlands
 Tel: +31318416664
> On 4 Feb 2022, 09:02 +0100, Massimiliano Cannata 
> , 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... I

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Conf] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some continuity of organization and management

[Sanghee Shin]

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

-- Original Message --
From: "michael terner" mailto:terner...@gmail.com>>
To: "Steven Feldman" mailto:shfeld...@gmail.com>>
Cc: "OSGeo-Conf" 
mailto:conference_...@lists.osgeo.org>>; "OSGeo 
Discussions" mailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org>>; 
"Massimiliano Cannata" 
mailto:massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch>>; "Eli 
Adam" 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 
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

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter

On 4 Feb 2022, at 09:01, Jeroen Ticheler 
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]
Jeroen Ticheler
Mobile: +31681286572
E-mail: jeroen.tiche...@geocat.net
https://www.geocat.net
Veenderweg 13
6721 WD Bennekom
The Netherlands
Tel: +31318416664
On 4 Feb 2022, 09:02 +0100, Massimiliano Cannata 
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 Tichele

[OSGeo-Discuss] Submit a workshop to FOSS4G 2022

[andrea antonello via Discuss]

Dear all, this is a quick reminder that February is the right month to
submit a workshop to FOSS4G 2022 and that the deadline is the 28th.
Apply and let the world know about your fantastic project.

Remember, for these hands-on trainings you can choose between the long
(4 hours) and short (2 hours) format.

For more information and how to apply: https://2022.foss4g.org/cfp-workshop.php

We hope to see your project represented at FOSS4G 2022.

On behalf of the Workshop Committee,
Andrea
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss