Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Fwd: 2022 Board elections
Congratulations! On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 6:24 PM Vicky Vergara via Board < bo...@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Jorge Gustavo Rocha > Date: Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 5:19 PM > Subject: 2022 Board elections > To: OSGeo Board > Cc: OSGeo Chief Returning Officer > > > Dear Board Members, > > The voting period for board members is over. As we all know, this year > we only had 4 nominations for same number of vacant positions. > > The results confirm that the nominees are well known within the > community and all receive an expressive number of votes. > > The count for each nominee is: > > Member Count Percentage > Ariel Anthieni 224 77.24% > Tom Kralidis247 85.17% > Michael Smith 218 75.17% > Angelos Tzotsos 248 85.52% > > We would like to congratulate the new board members. > > Best regards, > > Jorge Gustavo Rocha, Vicky Vergara and Vasile Craciunescu > (your 2022 OSGeo Elections CROs) > > > > -- > > Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt) > Salzmannstraße 44, > 81739 München, Germany > > Vicky Vergara > Operations Research > > eMail: vi...@georepublic.de > Web: https://georepublic.info > > Tel: +49 (089) 4161 7698-1 > Fax: +49 (089) 4161 7698-9 > > Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428 > CEO: Daniel Kastl > > > ___ > Board mailing list > bo...@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Conf] Conference resources working group
Hi! This has been largely discussed for years and never implemented (well, Steven Feldman did his part on the sponsorship team in 2021) so I am all for it! Thanks Luca! On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 4:24 PM Eli Adam wrote: > Hi Luca and all, > > That sounds like a great idea! > > Best regards, Eli > -- > *From:* Discuss on behalf of Astrid > Emde (OSGeo) via Discuss > *Sent:* Sunday, August 28, 2022 11:15 PM > *To:* Luca Delucchi > *Cc:* OSGeo-Conf ; OSGeo Discussions < > discuss@lists.osgeo.org> > *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Conf] Conference resources working > group > > Hello Luca, hello all, > > thanks Luca for the idea. I support it strongly. We have such a > structure for the FOSSGIS conference too and it helps a lot. > > I added my name to the page and I am happy to support FOSS4Gs. > > See you Astrid > > Am 29.08.2022 07:33 schrieb Luca Delucchi: > > Dear Conference committee, OSGeo friends; > > > > working on the FOSS4G and SotM 2022 organization I was able to see two > > different types of organization for the two conferences. I really like > > the idea of having a working group helping the LOC team that OSM > > foundation has, this helps a lot to simplify the work of LOC. > > So in these days I spoke with some people about my idea to create a > > working group in helping the different LOCs to have a successful > > FOSS4G (mainly the international one but it could also be done with > > regional if needed, for example setting up or helping with pretalx). > > Most of the people I spoke with really liked the idea so I added it to > > the board meeting and all the members supported the idea. I already > > found some people interested in being part of this working group. > > > > This new group is not a replacement of the Conference Committee > > because they have two different purposes: > > - the Conference Committee has to put out the bid and choose the best > > candidate > > - the Conference resources (final name has to be decided but this is a > > good proposal of Michael) has to help the chosen candidate to set up a > > good FOSS4G and simplify the work and it is a operative entity > > > > I started a wiki page [0] and I'll be working on that in the next > > weeks, if you are interested to be part of and support this working > > group please add your name. > > > > I would like to have the first meeting by the end of September, after > > having a call with FOSS4G 2023 team. > > > > [0] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Resources > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > ___ > Conference_dev mailing list > 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Conference selection transparency (Was Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023)
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:13 PM Jonathan Moules via Discuss wrote: > I don't think there's any need to reinvent the wheel here; a number of > open-source initiatives seem to use scoring for evaluating proposals. Chances > are something from one of them can be borrowed. > > Apache use it for scoring mentee proposals for GSOC: > https://community.apache.org/mentee-ranking-process.html > > Linux Foundation scores their conference proposals for example: > https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-europe/program/scoring-guidelines/ Am I understanding it wrong or this is to accept talk proposals, not conference proposals? Scoring a contractor for a well defined project (as you pointed public administrations do), choosing the right person for a specified job, or deciding if a talk deserves to be in a schedule is more or less "easy" compared to decide who is hosting a conference. If you want to propose a draft of score requirements for FOSS4G, I think it would be interesting to go through them and try to come up with something. Even if the scoring is not binding, it may help future proposals see what is the path. My only "but" with this system (which I use almost always when I have to review anything and I intended to use for this FOSS4G voting) is that it is hard to come up with an objective system that counts all the variables. And if the score does not match the final decision, it may be difficult to process. I have been on the GSoC as mentor with the ASF and true, we have a ranking process, but it helped us mostly to order the candidates and reject those that deviate too much. The final decision was not a clear numeric decision. When the difference is small, you do have to consider other things. And from what I have seen these past few years on FOSS4G, either there is one candidate that outshines obviously, or the difference is really small between candidates and it comes down to things that may not be even defined on the RFP. And there's things you have to consider that a generic scoring system can't help you with. We used this system in FOSS4G 2021 to decide which talks to accept on the conference, where the community voting had a strong weight but was not binding. And we had to make some exceptions with good talks that were experimental but didn't get a good score and objectively numerically they were rejected. We also had to reject some duplicated talks that had a high score but we couldn't argue both were accepted. Which one to reject? Usually the one that had a speaker with more talks. But what if both have a speaker with no more talks? That's something you have to check case by case. Which leads us that with the scoring there is less room for experimentation because the candidates will focus on getting high scores on specific questions. Not on offering what is their best. For example, the proposal we made for FOSS4G Sevilla 2019 in a pirate amusement park to celebrate Magallanes... no score could have predicted that. So I may agree on scoring, not on binding scoring. But first we need some draft to work on to score proposals :) ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:50 PM Jonathan Moules via Discuss wrote: > 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. I can't let this serious accusation go unanswered. All the process is done via public mailing lists. All the criteria is published on the Request For Proposals. Anyone on the community can review the RFP and propose changes to it. Anyone on the community can read the proposals and interact with the candidatures. The only two things that are not public are: * Confidentiality issues with the proposals. For example sometimes providers give you huge discounts in exchange of not making that discount public. So you can't show the budget publicly, unless you are willing to not use the discount. * What each member of the committee votes. And this is to ensure they can freely vote without fearing consequences. Which are two very reasonable exceptions. Anyone can ask questions to the candidates. If I am right, you yourself have been very active on this process for the past years. Were you not the one that asked what a GeoChica is or am I confusing you with some other Jonathan? If I am confusing you with some other Jonathan, my mistake. Maybe you are not aware of the transparency of the process. The process is transparent and public except on those two exceptions that warrantee the process is going to be safe. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Conf] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023
Hi, This is my personal opinion as co-chair of FOSS4G 2021 and not any official OSGeo statement. Take it with a grain of salt. I am still recovering from the burnout of organizing it, so I may be very biased :) On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:42 PM Jonathan Moules via Discuss wrote: > Why? If it can be held in a virtual format then surely that's better > than an in-person event? Better is a subjective term. It is better in some aspects, it is worse in some others. When we changed FOSS4G 2021 to the online version, we researched as much as we could about how to do it properly. And though I still need to write a second part post-event of this post[1] it summarized concerns that are really not fully solved in an online event. Most of the points stated there still stand. I would advocate to have both, online and face to face, maybe on alternate years, maybe adding as a "fourth" option on the rotation. Online is good, but in my opinion, it can't replace all in person events. And that hurts to say. > Online is more accessible, Depends on how you measure accessible. Not everybody has the network bandwidth or hardware to attend an online event, to name the most obvious one. But they may take a train or bus and go to the venue. And don't let me start with streaming services that ban certain countries. Because for example if you are streaming from USA, there are several countries that can't watch it. Period. By law. Safest place to stream from is Europe, which usually adds up to the bill. Or you stream from several locations, which adds complexity. What about communicating in a foreign language with all the body language missing? Not everyone is fluent in English. But when you are physically there, you can read clues on body language and you can use other methods to complement the English you are not fully understanding. That's missing on online events. May be minor to native speakers, but it makes the event less accessible to some people. Timezones are a nightmare too. Many people can travel and adapt to the timezone of the venue, but if you don't travel, some people find it hard to adapt to the timezone. Imagine you live with kids. Are you going to stay awake and sleep during the day without that affecting either you or them? It can be done, but saying "more accessible" as a blank statement is subjective. It has its difficulties. I agree that depending on the venue (is it accessible to wheelchairs? does the catering have allergy options? can you reach it walking or on public transport?) or the country chosen (can you get a VISA or are you in danger for being LGBTQ+?), it may be better to do it online, sure thing. But you have to go case by case. No generalizations here. > cheaper, This really depends on how good you want your event to be. You can have a free event (on Twitch or YouTube and expect ads in between talks) or you can pay for a good platform that offers services useful to make the conference better. How many of these services do you want? Did you like the social map from 2021? Was it too much? Do you want to have private video chats? What else can you add? Maybe some virtual reality room for the gala dinner? We ended up having a good price for all of this, but at a cost of a lot of volunteering work. Exhausting volunteering work that wouldn't have been required on a face to face version. > and the > massive environmental impact of several hundred people flying to an > arbitrary point on the globe With this I agree 100%. > Now is a good opportunity to re-evaluate the need for it to be in-person > given the evident success of 2021's online event. > > > It strikes me that online has numerous advantages: > > * Cheaper to attend Usually true (and true in our case), but I wouldn't count on that as another generalization without looking at close numbers. > * Cheaper to organise This depends a lot on where you organize it face to face and how you organize it online. > * Easier to organise (? a supposition) Well, I have found the online version much much much harder to organize than similar conferences in person. Just because on the online version there is absolutely no room to improvise, you have to have everything completely tied before the event. And have a backup plan. And a backup plan for the backup plan. And then maybe a third backup plan. And then during the event you will run out of backup plans and your only choice will be to shrug very hard. The moderator is missing because whatever personal issues. F2F: Anyone else in the room can act as moderator Online: Who has privileges to be a moderator in this room? Anyone? Someone? Are all the backup moderators busy somewhere else? How many rooms are on fire right now? Who can we speed up and teach how the controls work in less than five minutes? I want to thank again the amazing work of the horde of volunteers that moderated this 2021. And even when they were a huge amazing group and did their best, and we had a huge pool of backups, there
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] 2021 OSGeo Board of Directors election results
Congratulations to all the candidates! This was not an easy voting :) On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:41 AM Anne Ghisla via Board < bo...@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Dear OSGeo members and friends, > > Thanks to all candidates for going through the election process and > thank you all for your participation in this election. > > These are the results from the 2021 elections for the 5 open seats on > the OSGeo Board of Directors. > > The results in alphabetical order are: > > * Adam Steer > * Codrina Maria Ilie > * Marco Bernasocchi > * Rajat Shinde > * Vicky Vergara > > > Election figures are: > > * 321 votes out of 497 > * 65% participation > > All candidates received a large number of votes recognizing their > engagement in our community. > > Detailed number of votes for each candidate are available on the OSGeo > wiki [1]. > > Jorge Gustavo Rocha and Anne Ghisla > (your 2021 OSGeo Elections CROs) > > [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Election_2021_Results > ___ > Board mailing list > bo...@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G Facebook Page?
Not really our call, we couldn't find who was behind that one either. El mié., 20 oct. 2021 17:53, Michele M Tobias escribió: > Thanks! That's helpful to know that there are pages for specific > conferences, which is totally fine. > > Michele > > Michele Tobias, PhD > Geospatial Data Specialist > DataLab: Data Science & Informatics > Data & Digital Scholarship > UC Davis Library > > 370 Shields Library > (530)752-7532 > mmtob...@ucdavis.edu > ORCID: -0002-2954-8710 > > Pronouns: she, her, hers > > > -Original Message- > From: María Arias de Reyna > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11:04 PM > To: Michele M Tobias > Cc: discuss@lists.osgeo.org > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G Facebook Page? > > Hi Michele, > > FOSS4G 2021 LOC has no idea, we used this one: > https://www.facebook.com/foss4g2021ba > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 10:45 PM Michele M Tobias via Discuss < > discuss@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > > > > Does anyone know who owns or manages the FOSS4G page on Facebook > https://www.facebook.com/FOSS4G/ ? I tried messaging the owners last > week but haven’t gotten a response. Now the page has either been made > private or could have been deleted. I tried to create a new page with this > name, but it’s already taken. I wanted to see if anyone knew anything > about the existing page before I make another one. Thanks! > > > > > > > > Michele > > > > > > > > Michele Tobias, PhD > > > > Geospatial Data Specialist > > > > DataLab: Data Science & Informatics > > > > Data & Digital Scholarship > > > > UC Davis Library > > > > > > > > 370 Shields Library > > > > (530)752-7532 > > > > mmtob...@ucdavis.edu > > > > ORCID: -0002-2954-8710 > > > > > > > > Pronouns: she, her, hers > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G Facebook Page?
Hi Michele, FOSS4G 2021 LOC has no idea, we used this one: https://www.facebook.com/foss4g2021ba On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 10:45 PM Michele M Tobias via Discuss wrote: > > Does anyone know who owns or manages the FOSS4G page on Facebook > https://www.facebook.com/FOSS4G/ ? I tried messaging the owners last week > but haven’t gotten a response. Now the page has either been made private or > could have been deleted. I tried to create a new page with this name, but > it’s already taken. I wanted to see if anyone knew anything about the > existing page before I make another one. Thanks! > > > > Michele > > > > Michele Tobias, PhD > > Geospatial Data Specialist > > DataLab: Data Science & Informatics > > Data & Digital Scholarship > > UC Davis Library > > > > 370 Shields Library > > (530)752-7532 > > mmtob...@ucdavis.edu > > ORCID: -0002-2954-8710 > > > > Pronouns: she, her, hers > > > > ___ > 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
[OSGeo-Discuss] [FOSS4G] OSGeo Projects swag
Hi everyone! As this year we will not be able to give any kind of swag or merchandise in person, we want to add a virtual "swag bag" for attendees. We were toying with the idea of offering things from the projects. Like the instant classic joke of giving free QGIS licenses. So I want to ask you, as part of FOSS4G projects, if you can send us swags to offer. Members of projects will know better than us what each project can offer and how to catch the eye of the attendees. We would need: * An image * A catchy phrase * Longer description * Link, attached file or whatever we are offering. Could be a download link of the software itself. You can send me those in private if you don't want to spoil the surprise. Just offering a free license of $project would be nice, but if you can find something different or more experimental, we are here to experiment! Thank you so much, María. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] [FOSS4G] Schedule released!
Good news everyone! We have published a first version of the schedule![1] Note that you can change the timezone using the drop-down selection at the top left of the schedule. Default timezone shown is Buenos Aire's timezone. The schedule is still subject to change, as we are still tweaking minor changes. All speakers will be soon contacted by the session leaders in charge of their session. Vouchers for the registration tickets will be released soon. We are working as fast as we can, please be patient. If you sent some proposal but you don't see your talk published there and you didn't receive a rejection email, it may be we are still waiting for your confirmation. Please, check your inbox and your spam box because you should have either an acceptance email or a rejection email. And if you can't find anything and/or you want to double-check, login into the call for papers[2][3] and confirm your status. **There are accepted talks waiting to be confirmed. Don't be one of those!** Thank you all for your participation. This is going to be great. See you soon! María. [1] https://2021.foss4g.org/schedule/outline.html or if you prefer on a table by rooms https://2021.foss4g.org/schedule/full-schedule.html [2] Talks: https://callforpapers.2021.foss4g.org/foss4g2021/login/?next=/foss4g2021/me/submissions/ [3] Workshops: https://callforpapers.2021.foss4g.org/foss4g-2021-workshop/login/?next=/foss4g-2021-workshop/me/submissions/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
