[OSGeo-Discuss] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023 (extended deadline)

[Vasile Craciunescu via Discuss]

Dear OSGeo/FOSS4G Community,

The deadline for proposals to host our beloved global conference was extended. 
Please take a look at the information package and, *please*, dare to bid! It's 
very very important for our community.


May the FOSS4G be with everyone,

Vasile & Msilikale, on behalf of OSGeo's Conference Committee



[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2023_Bid_Process

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023

[Vasile Craciunescu via Discuss]

Hi Jonathan,

I fully agree with Maria. I find your accusation very serious and I would like 
to ask you to provide more information to support this. Maria's answer 
described very well how the evaluation process goes. Please let us know what we 
can do to improve the transparency.

Warm regards,
Vasile


On 13.01.2022 09:35, María Arias de Reyna via Discuss wrote:

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


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023

[Massimiliano Cannata via Discuss]

++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
> ".
> 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/
>> 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023

[María Arias de Reyna via Discuss]

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] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023

[Jeroen Ticheler via Discuss]

+1 Very well said Mark! 

Jeroen (fellow idiot)

> Op 13 jan. 2022 om 03:14 heeft Mark Iliffe via Discuss 
>  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 
>>  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 
>

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023

[Mark Iliffe via Discuss]

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 scra

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023

[Jonathan Moules via Discuss]

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 
 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"  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 
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
ht

[OSGeo-Discuss] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023

[Vasile Craciunescu via Discuss]

Dear OSGeo/FOSS4G Community,

Although the fight against COVID-19 is not over yet, we need to think and act 
to keep the FOSS4G spirit alive and to have our beloved global conference 
hosted in 2023. That's why OSGeo's Conference Committee is happy to announce 
that the call for location for the

"Free and Open Source Software for Geospatial Conference 2023"

is open. This year we accept bids from any region of the globe. 2021 was the 
proof that a successful FOSS4G can be organized in virtual form as well. With 
the mankind understanding more and more about the coronavirus, we really hope 
that FOSS4G2023 can be safely organized in physical format. And OSGeo is 
committed to stand by the hard working LOCs to provide all the needed support.

Please find all details on our wiki page [1]. In case that you have any
questions, don't hesitate to ask the Conference Committee [2]!


May the FOSS4G be with everyone,

Vasile & Msilikale, on behalf of OSGeo's Conference Committee



[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2023_Bid_Process

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee
___
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