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

[Luca Delucchi via Discuss]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 16:45, Michael Smith via Discuss
 wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Yes, I also (and not only because as FIrenze LOC are following these
way) think in the future virtual and in-person FOSS4G should be the
way to go.

To save the environment a better idea is to connect similar events in
the same place at closed times. I really look forward to being able to
join FOSS4G, SotM, HOT summit, OGRS, geopython, gvsig, etc conferences
all together. Since the spirit and the values are really similar I
think it could be possible to get a bigger year conference about Open
Geography tools and data.

About the effort of Local committee to start again it is true, for
that I would like to see in the future an OSGeo Working group managing
the organisation of the conference with the help of Local committee
(this already happen for SotM and HOT Summit)

>
> Mike
>

-- 
ciao
Luca

www.lucadelu.org
___
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=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=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 

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=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

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

[karsten via Discuss]

Dear (OS)Geo friends,

>  > 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.

Exactly, I can only say yes, yes and yes to this. For me the social
interaction is the main reason (at least for me) 
to attend such and event (even an online one).
I can go even a step further: while the technical/subject content is nice,
often even great that is not the main driver to attend such and event - I
can watch such in video and recordings all over the web online any time, but
the human interaction, networking and all that is priceless. It is
absolutely  a main driver for such events. This is not going to be covered
with any online event (even a great one like FOSS4G Argentina last year),
yup it  still does not come even close, too much is lost in 'translation'. 

>>> I'm not gonna attack Jonathan's points (or even reply to them, risking
an episode of sealioning to erode my patience), 

Neither will I do, some of the points are definitely valid 

>>> 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.

While there are many pros and cons (online vs. in person) that could lead to
"years of discussions' 
and a hundred people have 300 opinions - for me it really boils down to the
need for the social interactions (and all the myriad of benefits that stem
from that) mentioned above. 
I did not even start listing all my personal benefits (as a 'placeholder'
example) I had after I attended my fist FOSS4G Vancouver in 2007 (and other
conferences over the years) 
because I don't want to go into the "nitty gritty" here.

Long live FOSS4G "in person" events !

Cheers
Karsten

Principal TerraGIS LTD 
www.terragis.net

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

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

[Barry Rowlingson via Discuss]

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@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 
> 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
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
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

[Michael Smith via Discuss]

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
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[María Arias de Reyna via Discuss]

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

[Iván Sánchez Ortega via Discuss]

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

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

[Jonathan Moules via Discuss]

Hi Vasile,

> 2021 was the proof that a successful FOSS4G can be organized in 
virtual form as well.


Which is great to hear!

But in that case, the following statements raises a question

> we really hope that FOSS4G2023 can be safely organized in physical 
format.


Why? If it can be held in a virtual format then surely that's better 
than an in-person event? Online is more accessible, cheaper, and the 
massive environmental impact of several hundred people flying to an 
arbitrary point on the globe to watch/participate in something that can 
be done online doesn't seem warranted if, as you say, it works well in a 
virtual form.


I appreciate that someone is going to say "in-person is better for 
networking opportunities", but has anyone ever actually quantified these 
nebulous benefits? For any conference, doesn't even have to just be 
FOSS4G? Or is it merely a rationalisation? A quick literature search 
(not my area) suggests there's very little work been done in this area, 
and even less to objectively quantify the outcomes.


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

* Cheaper to organise

* Easier to organise (? a supposition)

* Open to many more delegates (several billion)

* Open to many more disadvantaged delegates

* Much lower environmental impact


Whereas the benefits for the in-person are:

* More money for OSGeo

* More networking opportunities

* (Personal level) A work paid for junket

It is true that some of the online benefits can be transferred to an 
in-person event by filming/streaming as FOSS4G does, but that doesn't 
obviate the very real environmental costs.


Seems like something worth discussing,

Cheers,

Jonathan


On 2022-01-12 12:57, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:

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
___
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

[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