not play a role anymore
when you score a good friend vs a hated enemy against a "list of
requirements"? It might look transparent but is not the tiniest
bit more fair.
/-- /
/Barend Köbben/
*From: *Discuss on behalf of
Jonathan Moules via Discuss
*Organisation: *L
that
they are acting in OSGeo’s best interest and respect their decision.
On 13 Jan 2022, at 20:58, Jonathan Moules via Discuss
wrote:
> Anyone can ask questions to the candidates.
Yes, they can (and yes, I have asked questions), but here's the
thing: The only people who actually mat
riety. Hence
my claim as to a lack of transparency; the votes are opaque.
Cheers,
Jonathan
On 2022-01-13 07:35, María Arias de Reyna 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 fund
e 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
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
