<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I think it is a pretty safe bet that it will be very small percentage of North Americans that make it to Beijing - based solely on cost and distance. I think those of us that are planning to go to Beijing will attend both conferences if we can. Agree that around 500 is the reasonable break even target for North America.<div><br></div><div>Mark</div><div><br><div><div>On Sep 23, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Peter Batty wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">I'm also not inclined to get too carried away with estimates for a possible event next year, but I do think that an estimate of 500 or so is pretty reasonable. There are concerns over potential dilution of the global event of course, but in my mind these concerns are relatively low when you look at the numbers on local (same continent) attendees for all our past events.<div>
<br></div><div>A good comparison is State of the Map - that had been in Europe every year until this year, where there is a larger user base. They chose Denver, and there was some concern about how attendance would be. An independent SotM-EU in Vienna was also organized, and there were concerns about that detracting from the Denver event. But Denver got 250 people, including a higher proportion from Europe than we had at FOSS4G, and Vienna got 200. Both events had higher attendance than the single event the previous year, I believe. Obviously there are no guarantees in any of this, but to me that's an encouraging sign that having events on different continent needn't have a negative impact on attendance.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div> Peter.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Mark Lucas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mlucas17@mac.com">mlucas17@mac.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Chris,<div><br><div>Good point, but I'd expect that we could rubber stamp the Denver conference and match or exceed this year's number. Colorado is a geospatial center for the US. I think the break even target for this year was somewhere around 500, so it would be prudent to target that or slightly higher. As government budgets get whacked I'm expecting a lot more interest from government agencies. In any case, it was a very successful conference and this years attendees will help spread the word.</div>
<div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>Mark</div></font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><div><div><div>On Sep 23, 2011, at 7:13 AM, <a href="mailto:christopher.schmidt@nokia.com" target="_blank">christopher.schmidt@nokia.com</a> wrote:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>On Sep 22, 2011, at 10:37 PM, ext Mark Lucas wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Yep, and that is just returning attendees. 67% were new attendees for 2011. So it would seem we could easily duplicate the 900 attendees at this years conference.<br>
</blockquote><br>I don't think it works like that.<br><br>FOSS4G was in the US for the first time in a long time; the space itself has changed<br>drastically since 2004 (or even 2007) when it was last practical to attend<br>
the conf. for a lot of people.<br><br>I think that the new market for attendees was huge this year, but I don't<br>think it's fair to extrapolate that it will *always* be that big;<br>I think that imagining the market/space will grow by as much between <br>
2011->2012 as it did between 2007 and 2011 is a pretty big <br>expectation.<br><br>I would start with mpg's numbers and go up slightly, unless you believe there<br>is somehow a very large untapped potential that Denver did not address; <br>
I think that imagining a 25% growth of new attendees is reasonable, but<br>expecting *two thirds* new attendees again would be excessive.<br><br>-- Chris<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Mark<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">
<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">For “likely to attend a FOSS4G in NorAmer next year” (#19), the responses were<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1: 10%<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
2: 10%<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">3: 25%<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">4: 20%<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">5: 35%<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Let us assign probabilities to the 1-5 scale like this:<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1: 0% (will not attend)<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">2: 20% chance of attending<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">3: 40%<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">4: 60%<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">5: 80%<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
Assume 900 attendees at this conference. Then, we can project the attendance at the postulated local NorAmer conference to be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">.10(900) * 0 + .10(900) * .20 + .25(900) * .40 + .20(900) * .60 + .35(900) * .80<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">= 0 + 18 + 90 + 108 + 252<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">= 468<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
Check my math, but we could be looking at a ~500 person gig.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">-mpg<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">From: <a href="mailto:board-bounces@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">board-bounces@lists.osgeo.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:board-bounces@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">board-bounces@lists.osgeo.org</a>] On Behalf Of Peter Batty<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:02 PM<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">To: foss4g2011-private; <a href="mailto:board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">board@lists.osgeo.org</a>; conference<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Subject: [Board] Fwd: Preliminary Survey Results<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Hi all,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Thought I would share a few preliminary results from the post-FOSS4G survey. As James says below, we'll get the data in a better form for analysis once we close the survey. But we got responses from 1/3 of attendees within 24 hours, which is great!<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">A few things I'd highlight:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">67% of attendees were at their first FOSS4G<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
46% answered 5 to the question how heavily do you currently use geospatial open source, remainder split fairly evenly between 1-4.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">61% were software developers as main job function, 18% end users, 20% managers<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Overall rating of FOSS4G was 4.31 on a scale of 1-5, which is impressive!<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
Highest ranked function was the Wynkoop reception at 4.55.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Quality of presentations was ranked at 4.07.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">72% answered 1 or 2 on how likely they are to be in Beijing, 14% answered 4 or 5.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">57% answered 4 or 5 on attending a "local FOSS4G" if there was one in North America next year.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Of various possible options proposed for future FOSS4Gs, the one involving an annual local conference in North America was the highest rated by some margin (though obviously a sample skewed towards North Americans).<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">We need the more detailed spreadsheet to get scores and comments for individual workshops, I think that will be another important thing to look at in planning for next year.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Lots of interesting stuff in the comments too that we can use to make future events better.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Cheers,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
Peter.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br></blockquote>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">From: James Sakamoto <<a href="mailto:jsakamoto@gita.org" target="_blank">jsakamoto@gita.org</a>><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
Date: Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:36 PM<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Subject: Preliminary Survey Results<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
To: Peter Batty <<a href="mailto:peter@ebatty.com" target="_blank">peter@ebatty.com</a>><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Cc: Bob Samborski <<a href="mailto:bsamborski@gita.org" target="_blank">bsamborski@gita.org</a>>, Libby Hanna <<a href="mailto:lhanna@gita.org" target="_blank">lhanna@gita.org</a>>, Patricia Essex <<a href="mailto:pessex@gita.org" target="_blank">pessex@gita.org</a>><br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
Hi Pete,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Thought we would share the preliminary survey results. It is still very early but, so far, you almost have 300 (285) responses which would be nearly 33%!!! That is a tremendous response. Generally we get about 10-15%.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">This is just the summarized PDF synopsis. When the survey closes we should be able to provide you with an Excel formatted report that you can manipulate as you please.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Thanks,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">James<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
James Sakamoto<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Senior Education Coordinator<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">GITA<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">14456 East Evans Ave<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Aurora, CO 80014<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
<a href="tel:%28720%29%20496-0484" value="+17204960484" target="_blank">(720) 496-0484</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:jsakamoto@gita.org" target="_blank">jsakamoto@gita.org</a><br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">October 24-26, GIS for Oil & Gas Pipeline Conference, Houston, TX <a href="http://www.gita.org/oilgas" target="_blank">www.gita.org/oilgas</a><br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><image001.jpg><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Board mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Board mailing list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br></blockquote><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>