[Board] [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G rotation

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Sat Apr 20 14:24:56 PDT 2013


Barend,
Maybe a better way of saying this is that:
Cities will continue to bid for the global conference as has been done 
to date. In selecting candidate cities, cities/regions which have 
successfully held regional conferences will be considered favourably.

On 20/04/13 20:41, b.j.kobben at utwente.nl wrote:
> Although I like the idea of having a different  regional conference 
> promoted to the "main" one eachyear, this would imply that regional 
> one changes in that year from local-language to english-language. This 
> would diminish the attractiveness for "locals"in some cases 
> (specifically Japanand South America)...
>
> Barend
> *
> on *Friday, April 19, 2013 23:00, Cameron Shorter 
> [cameron.shorter at gmail.com] wrote:
>
> From my assessment:
>
> We know from FOSS4G metrics that:
> * There are ~ 200 to 300 people who will travel to a global foss4g 
> event, anywhere in the world.
> * However, the majority of foss4g delegates are local or regional, in 
> the case of North America, in the order of 500+, and these 500 won't 
> travel to Europe, or Australia, or ... to see FOSS4G. Metrics are 
> similar for the rest of the world.
> * There is a proven demand for annual regional FOSS4G events. A global 
> FOSS4G event would reach 1/3 or less of potential FOSS4G attendees 
> which multiple regional conferences could reach.
> * So if our primary goal is outreach to as many people as possible, 
> then we are best served by multiple regional FOSS4G events.
> * The price we pay for this increased OSGeo market, is increased 
> marketing costs (in that vendors and delegates need to consider 
> travelling to multiple events).
> * The Open Source business model favours local businesses who can 
> provide local, personalised services. As such, I think that it is in 
> the interests of most OSGeo vendors to focus on regional events, where 
> they can reach more targeted customers.
> * And for the 300 odd people wishing to par-take in the "annual 
> gathering of the tribes", we will delegate one of the regional 
> conferences to be the global foss4g conference for the year.
>
> Hence, my vote is that we continue to have regional conferences every 
> year, with one of these regional conferences being given the extra 
> honour of being called the global conference.
>
> On 19/04/2013 12:54 PM, Daniel Kastl wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     When we bid we were concerned about regional events impacting
>>     attendance at the big one inn Nottingham this year.
>>
>>     this year we have a NA and  CEE event as well as FOSS4G. Everyone
>>     has reassured us that they have little or no impact, I am not so
>>     confident in a time of economic pressure but only time will tell.
>>
>>     It is difficult to be precise about cannibalisation by regional
>>     events unless we survey the delegates at these two regional
>>     events and ask them whether they plan to also attend Nottingham
>>     and if not whether they would have considered Nottingham if there
>>     had not been a regional event. Is that worth doing?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding regional events I would make a difference between events 
>> that are mainly in English language or some other language.
>> For example the German FOSSGIS or the Japanese FOSS4G wouldn't really 
>> attract an audience, that doesn't speak German or Japanese. Same for 
>> regional events in Spanish or French. These local events are 
>> important, because lot of people prefer to hear (or give) 
>> presentations in their native language.
>> A big regional event such as FOSS4G NA though might have an impact 
>> though.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 17 Apr 2013, at 00:06, Cameron Shorter
>>     <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>>     I'd like to hear thoughts from people who organise FOSS4G
>>>     regional events about the two year global / regional / global
>>>     rotation.
>>>
>>>     In particular, would large regional conferences such as
>>>     FOSS4G-NA or FOSS4G-EU or FOSS4G-CEE be interested in only
>>>     holding events every second year?
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 16/04/2013 9:46 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>>>>     I think Barend's suggestion of a two year scheme (regional in
>>>>     year X, global in year Y) deserves some more discussion /
>>>>     attention.
>>>>
>>>>     Personally I can see the benefits of this scheme (no big
>>>>     competition from large regional conferences in the global year).
>>>>
>>>>     Also, does OsGeo currently get money out of the big regional
>>>>     conferences (such as FOSS4G-CEE and FOSS4G-NA)?
>>>>
>>>>     Best regards,
>>>>     Bart
>>>>
>>>>     -- 
>>>>     Bart van den Eijnden
>>>>     OSGIS - http://osgis.nl <http://osgis.nl/>
>>>>
>>>>     On Apr 15, 2013, at 11:34 AM, b.j.kobben at utwente.nl
>>>>     <mailto:b.j.kobben at utwente.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     Hia ll,
>>>>>
>>>>>     I am not a board member nor a conference committee member, but
>>>>>     I feel an
>>>>>     urgent need to give my opinion here.
>>>>>
>>>>>     I grow uncomfortable by some of the trends that seem to
>>>>>     "logically follow"
>>>>>     (note the quotes, and yes I am exaggerating on purpose) from this
>>>>>     discussion:
>>>>>     1)- FOSS4G events are there to make money
>>>>>     2)- non NA/Europe events don't make (enough) money
>>>>>     3)- non NA/Europe events get badly organized (see Beijng)
>>>>>
>>>>>     Proposition 1 already makes me feel itchy. How can you
>>>>>     'charge' FOSS4G
>>>>>     main event organizers with being a cash cow ("expecting a $50K
>>>>>     profit") if
>>>>>     at the same time encouraging (allowing?) other events to be
>>>>>     organised that
>>>>>     almost certainly will cannabilise the main event (Foss4G-NA,
>>>>>     FOSS4g CEE)
>>>>>     on which events you put no obligation to make money? I think
>>>>>     we need a
>>>>>     two-year cycle: one year the main conference and other years
>>>>>     regional ones
>>>>>     (i.e. ones actively supported by OSGEO "central", what the
>>>>>     regional
>>>>>     chapters do on their own is their own responsibility).
>>>>>
>>>>>     Proposition 2 is touching a nerve because I work at an
>>>>>     institute that is
>>>>>     about capacity building for lesser developed countries. I
>>>>>     think part of
>>>>>     OSGEO is promoting the use of FOSS, and bringing knowledge and
>>>>>     experience
>>>>>     and enthousiasm about that to the places in the world that
>>>>>     would profit
>>>>>     most from it is a good cause that is worth doing even if it
>>>>>     brings you
>>>>>     less or no money. By all means subsidize the LDC meetings with
>>>>>     profits
>>>>>     from the Europe/NA ones. Call me a specialist, but I prefer some
>>>>>     solidarity in this...
>>>>>
>>>>>     Proposition 3 is plain not true. The South Africa FOSS4G was
>>>>>     excellent in
>>>>>     my opinion, the Beijng one failed because of insufficient control
>>>>>     mechanisms (either in place or just not followed up on) to
>>>>>     check on a
>>>>>     local organisation that chooses to do its own thing completely
>>>>>     independent
>>>>>     of 'OSGEO central'. Could have happened with self-centered
>>>>>     stubborn Dutch
>>>>>     organizers just as well, and certainly at least part of the
>>>>>     blame should
>>>>>     be on the 'OSGEO central' shoulders...
>>>>>
>>>>>     Yours truly,
>>>>>
>>>>>     --
>>>>>     Barend Köbben
>>>>>     Senior Lecturer, ITC - University of Twente,
>>>>>     Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation
>>>>>     PO Box 217, 7500AE Enschede (The Netherlands)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 13-04-13 14:30, "Cameron Shorter"
>>>>>     <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>>
>>>>>     wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     Frank,
>>>>>>     I agree that a compelling proposal should include meeting foss4g
>>>>>>     financial expectations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     For the record, the last board meeting discussed changing
>>>>>>     guidelines for
>>>>>>     foss4g budgets from expecting a $20K profit under
>>>>>>     conservative estimates,
>>>>>>     to a $50K profit. (This would typically result in a $100K+
>>>>>>     profit under
>>>>>>     expected conditions).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     David Bitner, pointed out that a $100K profit spread across 1000
>>>>>>     attendees equates to $100 extra per delegate, which is a good
>>>>>>     point, but
>>>>>>     should be tempered against the variability of FOSS4G
>>>>>>     attendees, and the
>>>>>>     high impact on profits this has. Looking back at
>>>>>>     an old foss4g budget, I extrapolated some profit figures:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Attendees: Profit
>>>>>>     1000: $58K
>>>>>>     900: $35K
>>>>>>     800: $11K
>>>>>>     700: -$11K
>>>>>>     600: -$35K
>>>>>>     500: -$58K
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     While I made some gross generalisations in my extrapolation,
>>>>>>     the take
>>>>>>     home message is that fixed costs of a large conference such
>>>>>>     as FOSS4G are
>>>>>>     very high, and consequently, a small percentage increase or
>>>>>>     decrease in
>>>>>>     attendance has high impact on profitability.
>>>>>>     So if we want to ensure a worst case scenario of 500
>>>>>>     delegates will break
>>>>>>     even, then we should expect to make a $110K profit for an
>>>>>>     expected
>>>>>>     attendance of 1000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On 13/04/13 08:10, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Cameron,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I feel this question ties into the expected revenue to some
>>>>>>     degree.  I'm
>>>>>>     personally fine with your suggestion with the caveat that we
>>>>>>     should
>>>>>>     expect a "compelling proposal" to meet our revenue generation
>>>>>>     guidelines
>>>>>>     which is (IMHO) going to be hard
>>>>>>     to do if aim for $50K revenue in the conservative case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I'm also fairly flexible on this who issue, but I *feel* like
>>>>>>     every time
>>>>>>     we have a revenue discussion we come up with one set of
>>>>>>     conclusions, but
>>>>>>     somehow we fail to actually apply those conclusion when setting
>>>>>>     requirements for the conference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Best regards,
>>>>>>     Frank
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>>>>>     <cameron.shorter at gmail.com
>>>>>>     <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     In the last board meeting, the question was raised about
>>>>>>     global FOSS4G
>>>>>>     rotation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     we currently have a 3 way rotation policy: Europe 2013 /
>>>>>>     North America
>>>>>>     2014 / Rest of world 2015
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     It has been suggested that we should revisit this rotation
>>>>>>     policy, and
>>>>>>     consider:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Europe / North America / Europe / North America
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Reasons:
>>>>>>     * Previous global FOSS4G events have attracted more people
>>>>>>     and been more
>>>>>>     lucrative in Europe / North America
>>>>>>     * Europe/North America could be argued to be less financially
>>>>>>     risky. Our
>>>>>>     one cancelled FOSS4G was in China in 2012.
>>>>>>     * FOSS4G (global and regional) events traditionally draw half
>>>>>>     their
>>>>>>     attendance from the local region. Europe and North America
>>>>>>     both have
>>>>>>     large populations with established OSGeo communities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I'm in favour of continuing our current 3 way rotation, on
>>>>>>     the proviso
>>>>>>     that there are proven OSGeo communities outside of NA/Europe.
>>>>>>     By proven,
>>>>>>     I'd suggest that we would consider regions which have already
>>>>>>     successfully staged a FOSS4G regional event (or similar)
>>>>>>     and who can put together a compelling justification that they can
>>>>>>     attract comparable attendees and sponsors to Europe/North
>>>>>>     America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Looking at:
>>>>>>     http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_History
>>>>>>     <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_History>
>>>>>>     <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_History>
>>>>>>     I see that there have previously been regional FOSS4G events in:
>>>>>>     Argentina
>>>>>>     India
>>>>>>     Korea
>>>>>>     Malaysia
>>>>>>     Japan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     So for 2015, I'd suggest that our FOSS4G pre qualification
>>>>>>     should invite
>>>>>>     responses from "rest of the world" and Europe, but we should
>>>>>>     give a
>>>>>>     preference to "rest of world" assuming they can provide a
>>>>>>     compelling
>>>>>>     proposal which is likely to attract similar success
>>>>>>     to past European and North American conferences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Generalising the rule. Our rotation policy should be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     * We give a strong preference to a region which hasn't had
>>>>>>     FOSS4G for 2
>>>>>>     years
>>>>>>     * We next consider the region which had FOSS4G 2 years ago
>>>>>>     * Only as a last resort would we consider a region which had
>>>>>>     FOSS4G last
>>>>>>     year
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Regions are considered as: Europe / North America / Other
>>>>>>     locations
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>>     Cameron Shorter
>>>>>>     Geospatial Solutions Manager
>>>>>>     Tel:
>>>>>>     +61 (0)2 8570 5050 <tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050>
>>>>>>     <tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050>
>>>>>>     Mob:
>>>>>>     +61 (0)419 142 254 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254>
>>>>>>     <tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>>>>>     Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>>>>>>     http://www.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>     Board mailing list
>>>>>>     Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>>     ---------------------------------------+----------------------------------
>>>>>>     ----
>>>>>>     I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
>>>>>>     warmerdam at pobox.com <mailto:warmerdam at pobox.com>
>>>>>>     <mailto:warmerdam at pobox.com> <mailto:warmerdam at pobox.com>
>>>>>>     light and sound - activate the windows |
>>>>>>     http://pobox.com/~warmerdam <http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam>
>>>>>>     <http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam> <http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam>
>>>>>>     and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software
>>>>>>     Developer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>>     Cameron Shorter
>>>>>>     Geospatial Solutions Manager
>>>>>>     Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050 <tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050>
>>>>>>     Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>>>>>     Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>>>>>>     http://www.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>     Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>     <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>     Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org  <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Cameron Shorter
>>>     Geospatial Solutions Manager
>>>     Tel:+61 (0)2 8570 5050  <tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050>
>>>     Mob:+61 (0)419 142 254  <tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254>
>>>
>>>     Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>>     Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>>>     http://www.lisasoft.com  <http://www.lisasoft.com/>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Conference_dev mailing list
>>>     Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>     <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Board mailing list
>>     Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
>> eMail: daniel.kastl at georepublic.de <mailto:daniel.kastl at georepublic.de>
>> Web: http://georepublic.de <http://georepublic.de/>
>
>
> -- 
> Cameron Shorter
> Geospatial Solutions Manager
> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>
> Think Globally, Fix Locally
> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
> http://www.lisasoft.com


-- 
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20130421/b05ace9b/attachment.htm>


More information about the Board mailing list