<div dir="ltr">Hi all!<div> </div><div>First of all, apologies for not being involved in irc discussion, but having followed the notes and the proposals i can also say that, for me, Rio is the more viable option. Whilst it is clear there are funding issues common to both - the cost of travel involved - the additional costs associated to singapore make it more problematic to implement at this moment.</div><div> </div><div>On the subject of the travel costs, this seems to be an inevitability of attempting to move LGM beyond it's historic 'heartlands'. It is a challenge that would need to be faced, sooner or later, if we have the ambition to extend the network and link with other communities. Also, i think any additional costs involved in travel (at least for those from the northern hemisphere) does also bring into focus the 'policy' around travel reimbursements and the structure/ split of money raised 'locally' or 'globally' and perhaps, in selecting rio for 2017 we can also use this as a moment to address more concretely the general issues around funding sources and purposes.</div><div> </div><div>In terms of what we might, realistically, be able to afford to provide to participants can be handled in many ways - either only committing to pay a certain percentage but to all speakers, having a fixed number of 'full cost' places that may not cover everyone, or something that privileges either those 'local' to the host city (by continent) or those distant from the host city. </div><div> </div><div>i think both proposals have raised some interesting discussions around LGM in general but i am in favour or the Rio proposal (as a positive choice) and think that, despite the new challenges it would present to us, it represents a really exciting opportunity for LGM!</div><div> </div><div>phil</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On 18 October 2015 at 09:00, Femke Snelting <<a href="mailto:snelting@collectifs.net" target="_blank">snelting@collectifs.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear all, Last Thursday we discussed the 2017 location for a second time. Hong Phuc (proposing Singapore, Singapore) and Joao (Niteroi/Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) had provided us with additional information after a first round of discussion. While both locations present exciting new territories with many new possibilities and challenges, we think that Niteroi/Rio de Janeiro presents the best option for LGM 2017. To host LGM in Singapore might be a chance to build new relationships with Asian user- and developer communities, and to hook into FLOSS-related business opportunities in the region. An issue with the proposal is its budget: there will be significant costs involved with the rent of locations and additional services that can not be fund-raised for locally. Niteroi/Rio de Janeiro could be a good option because we might connect to a local community that is felt to be genuinely interested in and for LGM developers/artists. The problem with this proposal is that for many people currently involved in LGM, costs and duration of travel will go up significantly. If the current trend for LGM funding continues, it would mean only partial reimbursement. Our shared enthusiasm for LGM in Brazil, combined with the issue of financial commitment needed beforehand in case we decide for Singapore, led us to propose you Niteroi/Rio de Janeiro as location for LGM2017. We realise that we were just a small group at the meeting so we invite those who were missing to respond before *Thursday 22 October 00:00 CET* on the LGM-org mailinglist. We particularly like to hear confirmations or disagreements from those that are involved in preparing LGM 2016: Nate Willis, Louis Desjardins, Antonio Roberts, Phil Langley, ginger coons, Julien Deswaef, Liam Quin, Loraine Furter, Manuel Schmalstieg, Camille Bissuel, Martin Owens, Dave Crossland and Greg Pittman. We of course hope to meet your enthusiasm and consensus but if we can't agree we will organise a vote and make a decision that way. All the best, pippin, Lara, Ale, Femke ////////////// LGM 2017 location discussion II, 15/10/2015 <a href="https://titanpad.com/lgm-location-2017" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://titanpad.com/lgm-location-2017</a> (12:38:13 PM) F_S: hey pippin a-l-e good to see you (12:39:01 PM) F_S: pippin did you get any further response from joao? (12:39:42 PM) F_S: hong phuc has added answers in the pad (12:42:13 PM) F_S: they're useful and straight, it helps (12:44:06 PM) The account has disconnected and you are no longer in this chat. You will automatically rejoin the chat when the account reconnects. (12:45:46 PM) F_S: ok back (12:45:46 PM) The topic for #lgm is: LGM 2015 | Toronto, CA 29 April - 02 May <a href="http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2014/see-you-in-toronto-in-2015/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2014/see-you-in-toronto-in-2015/</a> LGM 2014 |Held in Leipzig, Germany April 2-5| Video: <a href="http://download.gimp.org/pub/gimp/lgm/2014/day_1/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://download.gimp.org/pub/gimp/lgm/2014/day_1/</a> <a href="http://download.gimp.org/pub/gimp/lgm/2014/day_2/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://download.gimp.org/pub/gimp/lgm/2014/day_2/</a> <a href="http://download.gimp.org/pub/gimp/lgm/2014/day_3/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://download.gimp.org/pub/gimp/lgm/2014/day_3/</a> <a href="http://download.gimp.org/pub/gimp/lgm/2014/day_4/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://download.gimp.org/pub/gimp/lgm/2014/day_4/</a> (12:45:46 PM) Topic for #lgm set by plinnell!~mrdocs@opensuse/member/mrdocs at 03:33:48 AM on 12/07/2014 (12:45:56 PM) F_S: hello laraaa (12:46:10 PM) F_S: (12:46:10 PM) laraaa: hey F_S! (12:46:46 PM) F_S: we start or we wait for louis? (12:47:02 PM) pippin: I think we started on time :d (12:47:07 PM) F_S: ok good (12:47:22 PM) F_S: so did you get any news from brasil? (12:47:47 PM) pippin: ::and joao replied preliminarily in IM, but haven't sent an actual email response upon a reminder two days ago (12:47:53 PM) pippin: ::"I suppose there is no problem with the date change issue - I will just confirm that with Cadu. As for the sponsoeship - the idea is try to get enoguh of it to cover for local expenses - yes. But I will need some help from the folks at Create on getting these." (12:48:01 PM) F_S: ok (12:48:38 PM) F_S: you've all seen the answers from hong phuc? (12:48:51 PM) laraaa: yes (12:51:10 PM) F_S: we go through together? or where else to start? (12:51:34 PM) F_S: most important q we had was about the budget, and needing money for local costs (12:53:28 PM) F_S: so this seems confirmed; something we'll need to deal with (12:55:03 PM) F_S: ? (12:55:05 PM) a-l-e_: well, can we deal with it? (12:55:07 PM) pippin: I do not hink we can expect to have an up-front budget for 2016, given that we haven't had it in the past (12:55:17 PM) laraaa: you mean getting involved in soliciting sponsorships? (12:55:18 PM) pippin: s/2016/2017/ (12:55:55 PM) F_S: i have also trouble imagining how we can commit to costs (12:56:18 PM) F_S: upfront, i mean (12:56:34 PM) a-l-e_: as far as i can tell, the reality seems to be that the lgm that had moneys had it collected by the local organizer... and that the lgm organisation itself can collect less and less money. (12:57:25 PM) a-l-e_: "the lgms that had money"... the s is at the wrong place... (12:57:25 PM) pippin: a-l-e_: or even failed to accept offered money (12:57:26 PM) F_S: i agree, though i think it is not an immutable fact (12:58:17 PM) F_S: but there is a question with mixing funds for reimbursements and local costs (12:58:18 PM) a-l-e_: no, it's not immutable, but something has to mutate if we want to make sure that a local organizer can get some global money. (12:58:28 PM) F_S: exactly (12:59:04 PM) pippin: if the local organizers are not able to self-sustain the local costs AND the travel costs increase - it doesn't seem very feasible (12:59:50 PM) F_S: so when local costs and reimbursements are paid from the same budget, we need another type of 'governing' finances, i guess (01:00:09 PM) a-l-e_: mmm... i don't agree with F_S, but agree with pippin (01:00:26 PM) a-l-e_: the problem is not mixing, the problem is getting enough money. (01:00:56 PM) a-l-e_: i don't think that we ever "decided" (as far as we can decide) that the collected money is "only" for covering the traveling costs... (01:01:09 PM) F_S: ah, i think there are issues with deciding priorities, but maybe you are right if there were loads of money, it does not matter (01:01:21 PM) a-l-e_: ... but it seems to be a fact that the collected money won't cover much more than part of the traveling costs (01:01:28 PM) F_S: ok. (01:01:49 PM) pippin: another fact is that LGM does not really have money from year to year as a starting budget (01:02:20 PM) F_S: no. I think we should assume we start from 0 (01:03:07 PM) a-l-e_: the problem is that we have a policy "we reimburse traveling costs if we have money", but we seem not to be able to do so for a venue location (if it's located it has to be paid) (01:04:07 PM) a-l-e_: (there are other problems with reimbursing traveling cost, but i don't think they matter in this discussion) (01:04:32 PM) F_S: "we have a habit" (01:05:04 PM) pippin: (we're past half-time) (01:05:21 PM) a-l-e_: well, no the habit is that we reimburse everything... if the traveler survives long enough... (01:05:34 PM) a-l-e_: but the policy is that we don't promise in advance the full reimbursement (01:06:22 PM) a-l-e_: ...we have 20 minutes left... (01:06:26 PM) F_S: so what can we do to move towards a proposed decision? (01:07:07 PM) pippin: I think the important question for brazil was time-of-year, and joao seems to have half-confirmed that moving to autumn is not really important for them. (01:07:20 PM) a-l-e_: personally, i feel that i cannot be for the singapur proposal (for the budget issue). i'm not sure if the brasil one has the same issue or not. (01:07:38 PM) F_S: we checked flights for both from brussels -- it seems costs are correct for singapore, but a bit cheaper than expected for brasil (01:08:10 PM) a-l-e_: joao seem to say that they will try to be self-financed for the local costs... which is fine for me. (01:08:11 PM) F_S: but still, it means we either need to get a lot more funding (01:08:35 PM) F_S: or expect another group of people to meet, who can afford, or are closer to rio (01:10:07 PM) a-l-e_: well, i guess that the lgm in rio could be self-sustained for what concerns the people attending (01:10:10 PM) pippin: GNUGraf piggy-backing on LGM would mean that the fewer people coming would have local people with existing networks to meet (01:10:17 PM) F_S: yes (01:11:44 PM) a-l-e_: somehow, if nobody flies in it could still be a successful lgm... i'm not sure that the same applies to most other venues... (01:12:24 PM) F_S: it means documentation, video becomes even more important as a way to connect (01:12:34 PM) F_S: in both cases, for both locations (01:13:57 PM) F_S: so laraaa do you have a preference, or argument for or against the one or the other? (01:13:59 PM) a-l-e_: maybe... yes... (01:14:30 PM) laraaa: yeah, looks like finaces are the biggest stumbling block for this decision (01:15:12 PM) F_S: the issue of finances, in both cases are troubling me but the commitment upfront for singapore means we'll need to change the way we fund LGM. (01:15:32 PM) laraaa: and having a funraising startegy and commitment from the community to join in the effort (01:15:57 PM) laraaa: perhaps could be a way fwd (01:16:23 PM) F_S: yes. this is why it is important to make a decision now, so we can prepare and work on it in London (01:16:31 PM) laraaa: also, if in case of failing to provide fro expensive flights and thus lessen the intercontinental pattendance (01:16:47 PM) laraaa: would we consider online participation at all? (01:17:16 PM) F_S: we could, it is just hard to combine with the meeting aspect of lgm (01:17:56 PM) laraaa: yes, agree, just thinking of other ways to get people together... given the finacial uncertanty (01:17:58 PM) pippin: lgm is more about the social aspect and seeing people than attending talks (01:18:25 PM) pippin: seeing people/bringing projects together (01:18:32 PM) laraaa: yes agree (01:20:01 PM) laraaa: so rio is more likely to win this bid ye? (01:20:36 PM) pippin: rio does seem like the more feasible of the two (01:21:06 PM) F_S: it seems in this constellation, at least (01:21:25 PM) F_S: how do we proceed now? (01:22:01 PM) pippin: (laraaa: on a different topic; has there been considerations for a theme/tag-line for next years LGM? the call for content should go out - at least this year.) (01:22:21 PM) laraaa: it is time to push this out to the list? (01:23:07 PM) F_S: i guess we need to include some more voices, yes. (01:23:08 PM) laraaa: not yet, shall we fix london irc for next week? (01:23:30 PM) laraaa: or in two weeks? (01:23:35 PM) F_S: ok for london irc in a week (01:23:43 PM) laraaa: ok (01:23:44 PM) a-l-e_: for me the choice is rio or not rio... (01:23:55 PM) F_S: and what if not rio? (01:24:14 PM) a-l-e_: the fact that i don't think it's feasable to go to singapur should not be a yes for rio... (01:24:17 PM) pippin: next thursday, I am travelling (01:24:25 PM) a-l-e_: we still have to check if we want and can go to rio. (01:24:47 PM) laraaa: ok, we can go back to wednesdays evening/regular time/day (01:25:19 PM) F_S: sorry can we try settle for a proposal for the list on 2017 and how to handle that? (01:25:23 PM) a-l-e_: if it's not rio, we should start a new decision, if possible by retaining the problems we had in this decision. (01:25:50 PM) a-l-e_: now, the next question is: who decides and how? (01:26:06 PM) a-l-e_: fs, ale, lara and pippin vote? (01:26:11 PM) F_S: i don't see why it is not a decision between singapore and rio, in favor of rio at the moment (01:26:46 PM) a-l-e_: yeah... (01:26:54 PM) laraaa: i would agree with this - with only 4 of us, it is not enough to settle on anything (01:26:54 PM) mrdocs left the room (quit: Read error: Connection reset by peer). (01:27:00 PM) F_S: i guess we need to call in the voices of others touched by this decision, ie the ones we 'convocated'. (01:27:09 PM) a-l-e_: still, i'd prefer a choice for rio, rather than a "rio is less worse than singapure so let's try it" (01:27:12 PM) F_S: but prevent endless rounds of emails (01:27:31 PM) F_S: no i would not phrase it like that? (01:27:50 PM) F_S: they both present challenges, first of all fiancial but also opportunities (01:27:51 PM) a-l-e_: personally, i have a few reasons for saying yes to rio... (01:28:03 PM) F_S: which are (01:28:11 PM) a-l-e_: so if nobody sees at not feaseable i would give a positive vote to it... (01:28:55 PM) a-l-e_: so if nobody sees a "not feaseable" in there, i would give a positive vote *for* it... (01:29:37 PM) laraaa: and on an optimistic note, singapore still can happen sometimes in the future (01:30:22 PM) a-l-e_: the main reason is that there *is* a lively community in rio that i think that is genouinly intersted in getting in touch with the lgm developers/artists and i have some hope that it will lead to a better involvement of the brasilian guys in the global community (01:30:41 PM) F_S: ok nice, that overlaps with some of the things pippin mentioned last meeting (01:30:43 PM) F_S: so (01:31:41 PM) F_S: tomorrow evening i can write a mail to lgm-org with the proposal for rio, inviting comments etc (01:32:34 PM) F_S: if the discussion slants (ie gets unclear as in preference for singapore or rio) we'll need to vote (01:32:50 PM) F_S: so when? how much time in-between and how? (01:32:54 PM) a-l-e_: ok, fine to me (01:33:00 PM) laraaa: ok too (01:33:04 PM) a-l-e_: not more than a week time... (01:33:11 PM) pippin: fine with me as well (01:33:15 PM) a-l-e_: but a full weekend inbetween (01:33:29 PM) a-l-e_: tuesday evening? (01:33:31 PM) F_S: we can do it on the pad -- ie people can leave their name, so there is no need to set a meeting (01:33:51 PM) a-l-e_: ok (01:33:58 PM) laraaa: yes, we done similar thing last year ye? (01:34:10 PM) F_S: yes, though it happened during an irc meeting (01:34:42 PM) F_S: and there wasn't a pre-proposal (01:35:54 PM) F_S: i can't send out anything before tomorrow eve -- hope ok (01:35:55 PM) JanC left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 240 seconds). (01:36:21 PM) a-l-e_: ok, i'm going back to the office (01:36:30 PM) F_S: i guess we can for the vote on wed (01:36:48 PM) a-l-e_: yep, two weekend days + two week days should be enough... (01:36:54 PM) F_S: so see how responses go over the weekend, decide on a vote on monday (01:36:56 PM) F_S: ok (01:36:58 PM) a-l-e_: see you soon (01:37:00 PM) laraaa: cool _______________________________________________ Libre-graphics-meeting-org mailing list <a href="mailto:Libre-graphics-meeting-org@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank">Libre-graphics-meeting-org@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting-org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting-org</a> </blockquote></div> </div>