Having 1 global summit per year
I would like to hear your opinions on passing to only 1 Global Summit per year.
Background information:
It is looking like there may not be another global summit this year besides the upcoming one in Hvar, and instead several communities are having local summits (1 or more per year). We also see that it is hard for people to attend many summits in a year (the costs and time engagement are high), so it seems like it may be good to settle for 1 annual summit. The global ops team has asked around and so far everyone seems fine with the idea. Now I am suggesting to make it official, as well as gather your feedbacks on this, and hereby inform everyone.
Summit Hvar team’s vested interest
For the Summit Hvar team (which I’m part of), it would also mean receiving the whole 3K€ of global summit budget line for organising this summit, which would enable us to keep the all costs inclusive ticket price at 120€, and have at least 1200€ for additional travel stipends for connectors and active members upon application. (Previously, the summit travel support budgets have been at around 1500€ from what I could find.) (See Summit Hvar budget for details >> )
You can follow part of the discussion on this in Slack #global-ops-strat channel (March 6-22, approximately).
Therefore, I’m putting up a vote on having 1 Global annual summit from now on, instead of 2, and if there are no objections, we will proceed organising the upcoming one with that assumption.
-Auli (from the shoes of global ops & summit hvar teams this time)
Poll Created Fri 23 Mar 2018 10:59AM
Decision on having only 1 global summit per year Closed Thu 29 Mar 2018 9:00AM
Agree that from now on, it makes sense to have only 1 global summit per year (instead of former 2), and allocate global budget for global summits accordingly
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 84.0% | 21 |
|
| Abstain | 12.0% | 3 |
|
|
| Disagree | 4.0% | 1 |
|
|
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 66 |
|
25 of 91 people have participated (27%)
Maud
Fri 23 Mar 2018 11:16AM
Totally makes sense. Less is more (quality :-) )
Albert Cañigueral
Mon 26 Mar 2018 8:21PM
At some extend we are getting closer to the "Fab" anual gathering. Maybe a model to analyze in more detail for the future.
Taoufik Vallipuram
Wed 28 Mar 2018 1:53PM
I understand the budget issues but the summit is the best way to MPRL, thus 2 summits mean more opportunities to connect, especially since it remains hard to push connectors to travel and attend international events organised by local connectors.
Amanda Jansen
Thu 29 Mar 2018 7:02AM
I agree with Taoufik. Also: where are we going as OuiShare? All local can seem really decentralized but what's the glue making us stick together? Something to be careful about. Budget wise I understand :-)
Esra Tat Thu 29 Mar 2018 10:01AM
Hi Auli! (I didn't take part in the vote). I agree with the proposal, even though I see some limits with just one summit a year. "One local summit + one global summit" makes sense to me if we take into account that there are other opportunities to meet during the year.
Glo Thu 29 Mar 2018 11:54AM
Hi,For me, and I think for all the Southamerican conectors, is easier to participate if there is only one global summit.
Jef-b · Fri 23 Mar 2018 9:55PM
Really makes sense ! Thks Auli !