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

[Massimiliano Cannata via Discuss]

Dear conference community,
why is the community left out from this decision / discussion?

The FOSS4G conference is a property of OSGeo, and therefore of the
community as a whole.
The conference committee has not been elected so cannot decide in
representation of the community.

As an OPEN community I strongly believe that all the charter members (at
least) should have a word or vote on such an important decision.

I hope this message is not ignored..

Maxi



Il giorno gio 3 feb 2022 alle ore 15:04 Eli Adam 
ha scritto:

> Hi all (particularly voting committee members),
>
> The current FOSS4G structure has a new LOC every year starting more or
> less from scratch (some things like mailing lists and seed money are passed
> on).  Over the years, many people have commented on the load of work this
> creates for the LOC, the general inefficiency, the risk, and the burnout.
>
> If you consider yourself a voting member of the committee (
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members), please
> indicate your preference on this.
>
> This is an informal poll to see if the conference committee wants to:
> 1. Keep it the way it is and not change anything
> 2. Change the FOSS4G organizing structure to something else (discussion of
> what we change it to can come later if people want to pursue this).
>
> As I've expressed several times, I prefer option 2, changing the FOSS4G
> organizing structure.
>
> Thanks for your time and participation.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Conference_dev mailing list
> conference_...@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>


-- 
*Massimiliano Cannata*

Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica

Responsabile settore Geomatica


*Istituto scienze della Terra*

Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design

Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana

Campus Mendrisio, Via Flora Ruchat-Roncati 15

CH – 6850 Mendrisio

Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14

Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09

massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch

*www.supsi.ch/ist *
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[Massimiliano Cannata via Discuss]

Dear Jeroen,
Thanks for your considerations.

I wasn't proposing to extend the evaluation of proposals to the whole
community. I understand a dedicated committee should do this (even though I
believe a part of the evaluation of a proposal could be assigned by votes
of the community, maybe 10%?).

My point is that decisions of changing the organisation of the FOSS4G
cannot be done without the involvement of the whole community. It's not
about changing the evaluation process, it's about deciding for example to
have a fixed location, to completely leave it to an external company, to
pay the committee members to do it, to have it online or in person, to
cancel the global and keep only to local conference...

Another point is that so far there's the assumption that only organizer of
previous FOSS4G have the competence to understand technical matters. That's
quite aleatory and in no other committee there is such an entry barrier...
If you didn't play in NBA you cannot be a good coach? Can a government
self-elect his members? What about innovation, new ideas and other
experiences, or we're just close in our FOSS4G past events experience...
Because only if you run a global conference you have the competence...

Sorry to be long, and this is not personal at all, I just like being
inclusive and have empowered participatory approach..

All the best,
Maxi

Il gio 3 feb 2022, 17:04 Jeroen Ticheler  ha
scritto:

> Hi Maxi,
> Thanks for sharing your view on this. Although I sympathize with the idea
> of a whole community having a say in how conference locations is selected
> and organized, I’m not in favor of the process you propose. Reading LOI’s
> and full proposals takes a lot of time and voting a lot of thought and
> discussion. It really helps to have previous conference organizers on the
> committee as well. At the same time I also think the committee should be
> open to other members (I used to be a member long time ago while I never
> chaired a conference, and I don’t think that mattered honestly).
> Concluding, I think selecting a conference / proposal should be taken care
> of by the committee, not by all charter members or the whole community.
> Maybe the board or the charter members should decide for an elected
> committee similar to what we already do with the board elections.
> Cheers,
> Jeroen
>
> 
> Jeroen Ticheler
> Mobile: +31681286572
> E-mail: jeroen.tiche...@geocat.net
> https://www.geocat.net
> Veenderweg 13
> 6721 WD Bennekom
> The Netherlands
> Tel: +31318416664
> On 3 Feb 2022, 16:15 +0100, Massimiliano Cannata <
> massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch>, wrote:
>
> Dear conference community,
> why is the community left out from this decision / discussion?
>
> The FOSS4G conference is a property of OSGeo, and therefore of the
> community as a whole.
> The conference committee has not been elected so cannot decide in
> representation of the community.
>
> As an OPEN community I strongly believe that all the charter members (at
> least) should have a word or vote on such an important decision.
>
> I hope this message is not ignored..
>
> Maxi
>
>
>
> Il giorno gio 3 feb 2022 alle ore 15:04 Eli Adam 
> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi all (particularly voting committee members),
>>
>> The current FOSS4G structure has a new LOC every year starting more or
>> less from scratch (some things like mailing lists and seed money are passed
>> on).  Over the years, many people have commented on the load of work this
>> creates for the LOC, the general inefficiency, the risk, and the burnout.
>>
>> If you consider yourself a voting member of the committee (
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members),
>> please indicate your preference on this.
>>
>> This is an informal poll to see if the conference committee wants to:
>> 1. Keep it the way it is and not change anything
>> 2. Change the FOSS4G organizing structure to something else (discussion
>> of what we change it to can come later if people want to pursue this).
>>
>> As I've expressed several times, I prefer option 2, changing the FOSS4G
>> organizing structure.
>>
>> Thanks for your time and participation.
>>
>> Best regards, Eli
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> conference_...@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
>
> --
> *Massimiliano Cannata*
>
> Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
>
> Responsabile settore Geomatica
>
>
> *Istituto scienze della Terra*
>
> Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
>
> Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
>
> Campus Mendrisio, Via Flora Ruchat-Roncati 15
>
> CH – 6850 Mendrisio
>
> Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14
>
> Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
>
> massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch
>
> *www.supsi.ch/ist *
> ___
> Conference_dev mailing list
> conference_...@lists.osgeo.org
> 

[OSGeo-Discuss] Wiki access

[Massimiliano Cannata via Discuss]

Hi all,
I wanted to edit a page on OSgeo wiki but I got this message:

Your user needs to be merged with an LDAP-backed user.

If you do not yet have an LDAP user, you will need to create one before you
can continue.


Any hint on how to solve it?


Thanks,

maxi

-- 
*Massimiliano Cannata*

Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica

Responsabile settore Geomatica


*Istituto scienze della Terra*

Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design

Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana

Campus Mendrisio, Via Flora Ruchat-Roncati 15

CH – 6850 Mendrisio

Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14

Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09

massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch

*www.supsi.ch/ist *
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Geospatial devroom at FOSDEM 23

[Massimiliano Cannata via Discuss]

Ciao,
I'm in, let me know what is needed.

Best,
Maxi

Il ven 14 ott 2022, 14:38 Margherita Di Leo via Discuss <
discuss@lists.osgeo.org> ha scritto:

> Dears,
>
> FOSDEM 23 launched the call for devroom at FOSDEM [1], and I would like to
> propose again the geospatial devroom, if I'm not alone in the task. Would
> anyone be willing to be my partner in crime? Note that the deadline is 18
> October.
>
> Thank you in advance!
> Cheers,
>
> madi
>
>
> [1] https://fosdem.org/2023/news/2022-09-29-call_for_devrooms/
>
>
> --
> Margherita Di Leo
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss