<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <p>Re: local vs global PCO: Something in between might be better.
      Something floated and seriously considered a few years back was to
      have a paid position at OSGeo whose primary responsibility is to
      support FOSS4G LOC's. OSGeo would need to decide whether it can
      afford such a position.</p>
    <p>Re: Conference committee vs Board selecting conferences. There
      will likely always be many board members with interest and
      experience in conferences. If a board member wishes to contribute
      to discussion about conferences, it should be done on the
      conference email list. If the board member wishes to put in the
      extra effort required to research conference proposals and help
      with conference selection, they should join the conference
      committee. Of course, the board should have final say and veto
      over a conference committee decisions, and can also provide OSGeo
      goals which flow down to the conference committee.<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/06/2016 9:46 pm,
      <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:till.adams@fossgis.de">till.adams@fossgis.de</a> wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:4b3ed44a6668bd6dfb7d35983eba3c87@fossgis.de"
      type="cite">Hi,
      <br>
      <br>
      just two cents from LOC 2016:
      <br>
      <br>
      to 1.: I also do not like the idea of a fixed PCO. Our (2016) PCO
      is locally rooted, they know the venue, the city, the things you
      can do on a local base. It would be dangerous not to have the
      possibility to catch hold of this knowledge. Also, in my eyes,
      having always the same PCO means that FOSS4G conferences get equal
      and equal. One of the things I like, is that LOC's have the
      freedom to do something new, to add in new elements into a
      conference. That keeps FOSS4G living and kind of surprising. The
      same PCO bears the danger to do "business as usual" year to year.
      <br>
      <br>
      Pricing:
      <br>
      If the board decides that we want cheaper/free tickets for
      students/people from 3rd world countries, the board must take over
      full financial risk for every event (as it should be in general in
      my eyes). Offering such reduced fees leads to a very very
      difficult situation of financial planning for LOC's.
      <br>
      <br>
      Regards, Till
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
      Am 2016-05-31 19:43, schrieb Steven Feldman:
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">Summing up my views on various topics on
        this mail thread
        <br>
        <br>
        I am in the camp that says that the current process sort of
        works,
        <br>
        there is always room for improvement but I would be against
        Dave’s
        <br>
        approach of locking us into a fixed PCO and pushing the
        selection to
        <br>
        the Board.
        <br>
        <br>
        1) Is there a PCO with expertise to operate across the whole
        globe? I
        <br>
        doubt that any of the smaller cost effective providers could
        offer
        <br>
        that service
        <br>
        2) The key to a successful event is an energetic and imaginative
        LOC,
        <br>
        the current process has thrown up a heck of a lot of good teams
        who
        <br>
        have worked immensely hard. Would a change to a board determined
        <br>
        choice of city have the same effect?
        <br>
        3) there is nothing to stop the Board suggesting to a city/LOC
        that
        <br>
        they should submit a proposal. the initial letter is very simple
        and
        <br>
        quick
        <br>
        <br>
        BTW we still have an outstanding topic to get a board decision
        on how
        <br>
        we wish to interface with Location Tech on the global event. Can
        they
        <br>
        be a PCO, underwriter and joint promoter of the event? This
        topic
        <br>
        generated a lot of debate (some of which was regrettable in
        tone) when
        <br>
        we were choosing for 2017. It would be good to be clear on this
        before
        <br>
        starting the 2018 process.
        <br>
        <br>
        There has been some discussion about the cost of FOSS4G, whether
        it
        <br>
        is too expensive, how it could be reduced etc. I have helped to
        <br>
        organise a lot of events and I do not know how you can run an
        event
        <br>
        without incurring expenses (venues, catering, AV, wifi,
        registration
        <br>
        etc) of course there are cheaper ways of doing things but they
        are
        <br>
        rarely done for nothing. So the delegate price is a function of
        <br>
        choices on venue etc, the level of sponsorship that we can
        attract (in
        <br>
        recent years between $10 and $20 per delegate approx) and the
        level of
        <br>
        surplus returned to OSGeo (in recent years between $10 and $15
        per
        <br>
        delegate approx) and the number of free entries that we offer to
        <br>
        speakers, workshops, students and those from less advantaged
        <br>
        communities. It would be helpful if the Board could set some
        policy on
        <br>
        this topic before we go out for the 2018 call.
        <br>
        <br>
        I agree with that we should have a more transparent way of
        evaluating
        <br>
        bids as CC chair perhaps I should put together a straw man of
        <br>
        selection criteria (a bit like tender making criteria)? Possible
        <br>
        criteria could include - ticket cost, travel cost, accommodation
        cost,
        <br>
        strength of LOC, any requirements for an OSGeo financial
        guarantee,
        <br>
        risk, innovation, outreach programme, grant programme, etc.
        <br>
        <br>
        There is a lot of work involved in assessing bids, I am in
        favour of
        <br>
        leaving the selection to the CC with the Board having the final
        <br>
        approval. This reduces workload on the board (except those
        members who
        <br>
        are also CC members).
        <br>
        <br>
        Re membership of CC. I remain of the opinion that it should
        comprise
        <br>
        up to 12 past chairs or vice chairs of global and regional
        events with
        <br>
        selection by the Board if there are more candidates than places
        (norm
        <br>
        should be to retire from CC after a max of 4 or 5 years, enough
        is
        <br>
        enough after all!). You don’t need to be a member of the CC to
        express
        <br>
        opinions on the CC list or to contribute time in working on
        policies
        <br>
        etc on the wiki, but past experience should be a criteria for
        being
        <br>
        one of those voting.
        <br>
        <br>
        I have suggested in the past that the CC should have the ability
        to
        <br>
        influence the timing of regional events that might conflict with
        the
        <br>
        global event. One way would be requiring anyone who wanted to
        use the
        <br>
        FOSS4G brand for an event to apply to CC with their proposed
        dates.
        <br>
        Need not be a cumbersome process but would establish a way to
        avoid
        <br>
        conflicts.
        <br>
        <br>
        It would be great to have a f2f between board and CC members
        when we
        <br>
        are all in Bonn, no time will be perfect for everyone so how
        about
        <br>
        16.00-17.00 on Wednesday 25th August (finishing well before the
        AGM)?
        <br>
        Till has offered to allocate a room to us. Shall I set up a
        doodle
        <br>
        with a couple of time slots for people to choose or just go for
        this
        <br>
        one?
        <br>
        <br>
        ______
        <br>
        Steven
        <br>
        <br>
        <br>
        <blockquote type="cite">On 31 May 2016, at 16:01, Helena
          Mitasova <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:hmitaso@ncsu.edu"><hmitaso@ncsu.edu></a> wrote:
          <br>
          <br>
          Dave,
          <br>
          <br>
          I agree with Maxi. I have been involved with conference
          committee for many years and served on steering committees for
          academic track
          <br>
          on quite a few of them and I actually like the current system
          where we have FOSS4G NA organized by LocationTech and the
          other
          <br>
          conferences organized in quite diverse ways by LOC. I think
          LocationTech has done a great job for the conference in
          Raleigh,
          <br>
          I liked the way how it was organized.
          <br>
          But at the same time, as Venka mentioned some time ago,
          conferences organized by LOC help build the community and
          broaden
          <br>
          the cultural experience - each LOC brings something new to the
          conference and I think that is a good thing,
          <br>
          as the diversity of approaches makes the conference series
          more robust.
          <br>
          <br>
          I think that Maxi’s suggestion for more transparent evaluation
          would help to clear some misunderstanding on the votes
          <br>
          both at the conference committee level and the board level.
          <br>
          <br>
          Regarding Cameron’s note about the need for experience with
          conferences when making the decisions, when you look at the
          board members,
          <br>
          you can see extensive experience with organizing FOSS4G
          conferences at all levels for many years, including running
          the conferences
          <br>
          and working with LOCs.
          <br>
          <br>
          On the more practical side, for 2018 RFP we will need to
          address the timing of FOSS4G NA and FOSS4G  Global becuase
          <br>
          they are geting too close with May too late and August too
          early (and a vacation time!).
          <br>
          <br>
          Helena
          <br>
          <br>
          <br>
          <br>
          <br>
          <blockquote type="cite">On May 31, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Dave
            McIlhagga <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com"><dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com></a> wrote:
            <br>
            <br>
            Hi Cameron and Maxi,
            <br>
            <br>
            Thanks for the quick feedback on this.
            <br>
            <br>
            The decision (ie who makes it) I think here is less of the
            issue than the actual process itself.
            <br>
            <br>
            Does anyone else feel that we could do a better job here if
            we scrapped this competitive LOC process and instead worked
            to compare potential cities/countries and make a decision
            this way?
            <br>
            <br>
            FOSS4G-NA has worked this way for several years, and it
            seems like a much more collaborative approach to making a
            decision, instead of the bureaucratic RFP-like process we’ve
            put in place that really locks us in to a pre-set path.
            <br>
            <br>
            Dave
            <br>
            <br>
            <br>
            <br>
            <br>
            <blockquote type="cite">On May 31, 2016, at 1:44 AM,
              Massimiliano Cannata <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch"><massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch></a>
              wrote:
              <br>
              <br>
              Dear all
              <br>
              Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
              <br>
              <br>
              I see the current process quite fine with conf com
              evaluating the proposal and the board confirm or
              eventually override the rank given.
              <br>
              <br>
              The only thing i can suggest is to have a transparent
              process of evaluation in the sense of having well defined
              evaluation criteria justified by voting members.
              <br>
              E.g.: Not only my vote for A but for A-prices: 7 out of 10
              with short motivation.
              <br>
              <br>
              In this way results are transparent and easier to be
              understood.
              <br>
              <br>
              Cameron, i think that saying that if you didn't run a big
              conference you are not eligible for voting is deeply
              wrong.
              <br>
              It is like excluding users from PSC because are not
              developers. Diversity of visions and ideas and point of
              view brings often innovation and improve the processes.
              <br>
              <br>
              Maxi
              <br>
              Il 30/Mag/2016 23:52, "Cameron Shorter"
              <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com"><cameron.shorter@gmail.com></a> ha scritto:
              <br>
              Dave,
              <br>
              <br>
              I like where you are going with this email thread.
              <br>
              <br>
              I'll expand to say that making an informed decision about
              FOSS4G city selection involves:
              <br>
              <br>
              1. A significant time studying proposals
              <br>
              <br>
              2. Significant experience understanding the complexities
              running a conference (as experienced by prior foss4g
              committees)
              <br>
              <br>
              Unless board members have been involved in running a
              conference they would likely need to defer to expertise of
              others in making a FOSS4G decision.
              <br>
              Volunteer effort is thin in both the conference committee
              and the board committee (to the level required to
              understand a FOSS4G proposal). I agree with Dave about
              outsourcing this work.
              <br>
              As it stands, I think the conference committee is better
              qualified to make a better decision on FOSS4G selection.
              But board input should be welcomed.
              <br>
              <br>
              Warm regards, Cameron
              <br>
              <br>
              On 31/05/2016 1:11 am, Dirk Frigne wrote:
              <br>
              <blockquote type="cite">Dave,
                <br>
                <br>
                Thank you for your mail.
                <br>
                It is very informative, and I will put a topic on the
                next board meeting
                <br>
                on June, 9. I think the points we should discuss at the
                board level are:
                <br>
                <br>
                1. What does the board expect from the conference
                committee, so it can
                <br>
                make a right decision.
                <br>
                2. What is the vision of the board concerning the most
                important event
                <br>
                of OSGeo.
                <br>
                <br>
                It is clear FOSS4G (main and side events) become more
                and more important
                <br>
                to outreach to new potential members, and to connect and
                'energise' the
                <br>
                current members. Almost every week there is a FOSS4G
                event somewhere on
                <br>
                this planet. It should be great to have an overview list
                of all the
                <br>
                FOSS4G events taken place in the last 10 years. I've
                seen a slide by
                <br>
                Till about the global FOSS4G events with the number of
                attendees, but an
                <br>
                overview of all the events would give a good insight in
                the importance
                <br>
                of the movement.
                <br>
                <br>
                I will be in Bonn and open for a face2face meeting with
                other members of
                <br>
                the committee to discuss these topics.
                <br>
                <br>
                Dirk.
                <br>
                <br>
                On 30-05-16 16:07, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
                <br>
                <br>
                <blockquote type="cite">Steven,
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  First of all - I think this committee has done a lot
                  of really good and
                  <br>
                  very important work over the years, so for everyone
                  here please don’t
                  <br>
                  take any of this as a criticism of the work that’s
                  been done in the
                  <br>
                  past. I think we’ve done the best we can with what
                  we’ve had to work
                  <br>
                  with and the mandate of the committee.
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  Note: I’ve cc’d the board here as some of this needs
                  to be discussed at
                  <br>
                  the board level not just within this committee.
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  I have a few areas of concern that I think are worth a
                  discussion here:
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  1. *Who Decides?*
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  I believe we need to separate out the “Doing” from
                  “Decisions” —
                  <br>
                  Committee’s are put in place to handle the
                  _/workload/_ that would be
                  <br>
                  too onerous for the board, and to make decisions that
                  individually have
                  <br>
                  _/relatively low impact on the organization as a
                  whole/_. The Board is
                  <br>
                  responsible for making the _/decisions that will have
                  significant impact
                  <br>
                  on the organization/_.
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  With that in mind — my suggestion here is that
                  regardless of the process
                  <br>
                  we go through to decide on locations for future
                  events, organizing
                  <br>
                  committees, timing etc.., (more on this below) the
                  board should be
                  <br>
                  making the ultimate decision on the annual event, if
                  for no other reason
                  <br>
                  than it’s financial impact on the organization. Any
                  event could have +/-
                  <br>
                  $100,000 impact on the organization, and this today is
                  the primary
                  <br>
                  source of funding for OSGeo. By definition, that makes
                  this decision the
                  <br>
                  most important decision OSGeo makes every year.
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  Having said that — as we all know here, there is a ton
                  of leg work that
                  <br>
                  precedes making this decision — and that’s where the
                  work of this
                  <br>
                  committee should be focused. If this group can be in
                  the business of
                  <br>
                  _running and managing_ the process of putting on the
                  conference each
                  <br>
                  year, and _advising_ the board on options, pros/cons,
                  etc.. ie. helping
                  <br>
                  the board to make an informed decision, then we’re
                  doing our job as a
                  <br>
                  committee. Then the board can make this key decision
                  based on the
                  <br>
                  direction the board is taking the organization. Is
                  fundraising
                  <br>
                  important? Is hosting the event in places OSGeo is
                  strong important? Or
                  <br>
                  maybe in places it’s weak and wants to grow? Depending
                  on budget plans
                  <br>
                  and many other factors — the answers to these
                  questions can be quite
                  <br>
                  different.
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  2. *Selection Process*
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  I feel that the competitive process we’ve established
                  that was arguably
                  <br>
                  well suited for the early days of OSGeo (it was
                  definitely a step
                  <br>
                  forward from yours truly choosing - which was the
                  process pre-OSGeo) —
                  <br>
                  has run it’s course. With the amount of experience we
                  have under our
                  <br>
                  collective belts, and the size of the events we’re
                  dealing with, why do
                  <br>
                  we every year need to more or less start from scratch,
                  and waste
                  <br>
                  valuable community volunteer time in competition
                  rather than doing
                  <br>
                  something collaboratively?
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  A very simple example of where the current process
                  fails to meet OSGeo’s
                  <br>
                  needs is the proposed dates from the most recent
                  selection process.
                  <br>
                  Every proposal suggested an August date for the event
                  … why? Because it
                  <br>
                  was the cheapest period to rent venues, and could as a
                  result drive the
                  <br>
                  most profit for OSGeo, increasing every LOCs chance of
                  being selected.
                  <br>
                  That’s possibly the right way to do things … but it
                  also means
                  <br>
                  overlapping with many peoples vacation periods,
                  meaning many attendees
                  <br>
                  that would typically come, won’t. Was that a good
                  thing? The competitive
                  <br>
                  process meant right or wrong, we were more or less
                  “stuck” with an
                  <br>
                  August date.
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  What if instead we did something along the following
                  (this is just to
                  <br>
                  get the brain juices flowing, not definitive):
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  1. Find a PCO we can work with year-after-year … this
                  would make life
                  <br>
                  simpler for the committee, and cheaper for OSGeo as
                  there’s no
                  <br>
                  year-after-year re-learning. It also means we can much
                  more effectively
                  <br>
                  learn from our mistakes and have consistent
                  relationships to work with
                  <br>
                  to put on a better show every year.
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  2. We come up with a predictable date/schedule so that
                  attendees and
                  <br>
                  critically sponsors can plan around it
                  year-after-year.
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  3. Committee looks into optional cities/countries to
                  host through a lens
                  <br>
                  of a combination of availability, cost, transport
                  access, and access to
                  <br>
                  locals who could help form a LOC. If this sounds like
                  a lot of work …
                  <br>
                  well that’s why you have a PCO you work with year
                  after year, who can do
                  <br>
                  the leg work on this for you efficiently and far
                  better than any of us
                  <br>
                  can. This also gives you *negotiating* position with
                  the various
                  <br>
                  venues/hotels/cities. With a conference the size of
                  FOSS4g, most cities
                  <br>
                  have one venue that can support it … not much
                  bargaining room when
                  <br>
                  you’re the LOC. But when you’re OSGeo that go to any
                  city .. you can
                  <br>
                  negotiate.
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  4. All of this combined allows us to consult the board
                  on options we’re
                  <br>
                  finding, fine tune based on the board’s needs — and
                  ultimately work in
                  <br>
                  collaboration with the board to come up with a
                  selected city, that has a
                  <br>
                  high chance of success given we’re putting our
                  collective knowledge and
                  <br>
                  the PCOs together without having to pick “one proposal
                  vs. another”.
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  I’m not sure if this is all making sense — sometimes
                  email isn’t the
                  <br>
                  best communicator, but I guess my point is, I think we
                  can do a lot
                  <br>
                  better than the current process, and arguably with far
                  less cumulative
                  <br>
                  volunteer time when you combine the efforts of the
                  committee and X
                  <br>
                  bidding LOCs.
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  Worth a discussion at least I’d suggest?
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  Thanks,
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  Dave
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  Dave McIlhagga
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com">dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com</a>
                  <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com"><mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com></a>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  /Maps at your fingertips/
                  <br>
                  /
                  <br>
                  /
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.mapsherpa.com">www.mapsherpa.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.mapsherpa.com"><http://www.mapsherpa.com></a>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <blockquote type="cite">On May 27, 2016, at 1:25 AM,
                    Steven Feldman <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>
                    <br>
                    <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com></a>
                    <br>
                    <blockquote type="cite">wrote:
                      <br>
                    </blockquote>
                    <br>
                    Dave
                    <br>
                    <br>
                    Surely the board should delegate important tasks to
                    its committees not
                    <br>
                    take on more work?
                    <br>
                    <br>
                    It sounds like you think something has gone wrong
                    with the selection
                    <br>
                    process, can you explain?
                    <br>
                    <br>
                    Steven
                    <br>
                    <br>
                    <br>
                    <blockquote type="cite">On 26 May 2016, at 19:28,
                      Dave McIlhagga <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com">dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com</a>
                      <br>
                      <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com"><mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com></a>
                      <br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">wrote:
                        <br>
                      </blockquote>
                      <br>
                      Steven,
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      I couldn’t agree more — this committee has
                      probably the single
                      <br>
                      biggest impact of any OSGeo activities on the
                      Foundation,
                      <br>
                      particularly from a financial perspective.
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      If we’re going to look at this — I think we should
                      look at the whole
                      <br>
                      picture of how we do things here. It has long been
                      a concern of mine
                      <br>
                      that the most important decision that OSGeo makes
                      every year is
                      <br>
                      effectively delegated away by the board who is the
                      elected group in
                      <br>
                      fact charged with representing the interests of
                      the membership.
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      The number 1 change I would recommend is that this
                      committee provide
                      <br>
                      all of the logistical services to review
                      conference options, help
                      <br>
                      local organizing committees, and all of the other
                      leg work a
                      <br>
                      committee exists to handle. But the over-riding
                      guidance of what the
                      <br>
                      international FOSS4G annual conference should be
                      all about, how OSGeo
                      <br>
                      decides where/how conference is hosted and run
                      each year, should
                      <br>
                      really be in the domain of the Board.
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      This group can help that process out extensively
                      given the breadth of
                      <br>
                      experience of the members. If it makes sense to
                      continue the RFP
                      <br>
                      process as we have in the past (which I’m not
                      convinced of) - then
                      <br>
                      this committee can manage that whole process, but
                      I don’t believe we
                      <br>
                      should be casting the votes. It’s too important a
                      decision for the
                      <br>
                      Foundation. Providing experience, perspective, and
                      commentary on
                      <br>
                      proposals to the board is reasonable — but I feel
                      it’s time that the
                      <br>
                      board take back this decision making authority.
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      Technically, the board does approve the decision
                      of the committee —
                      <br>
                      but this has never been overturned, and in my
                      opinion, the year we
                      <br>
                      failed in China was a direct outcome of this
                      process - I don’t think
                      <br>
                      we’ve really learned our lesson from that yet.
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      Dave
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">On May 26, 2016, at 12:40
                        PM, Steven Feldman <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>
                        <br>
                        <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com></a>
                        <br>
                        <blockquote type="cite">wrote:
                          <br>
                        </blockquote>
                        <br>
                        Andrea
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        Definitely not my intention to indicate support
                        no process.
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        Conference Committee is imho second most
                        important committee of
                        <br>
                        OSGeo, my view is it should have process for
                        selection, clear bounds
                        <br>
                        of authority and expectations on members.
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        Would be good to hear views from a broad cross
                        section of current
                        <br>
                        and past members
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        Steven
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        <blockquote type="cite">On 25 May 2016, at
                          22:01, Andrea Ross <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:andrea.ross@eclipse.org">andrea.ross@eclipse.org</a>
                          <br>
                          <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:andrea.ross@eclipse.org"><mailto:andrea.ross@eclipse.org></a>
                          <br>
                          <blockquote type="cite">wrote:
                            <br>
                          </blockquote>
                          <br>
                          Steven, All
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          Are you stating no process or criteria because
                          you believe that's
                          <br>
                          best, or to draw attention to it being a very
                          bad idea? I can't
                          <br>
                          tell through email. :-)
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          Andrea
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          <blockquote type="cite">On 25/05/16 13:08,
                            Steven Feldman wrote:
                            <br>
                            I thought that had been agreed by nearly
                            everyone who commented
                            <br>
                            although there may have been one or two
                            objections including mine.
                            <br>
                            <br>
                            It seems that if you want to join conference
                            committee there is no
                            <br>
                            process or criteria, you say you want to
                            join and then you can.
                            <br>
                            Quite what happens when you go silent I
                            don't know? Membership
                            <br>
                            allows vote for location of FOSS4G which
                            raises question about
                            <br>
                            potential "packing" of vote but so far we've
                            not had a problem so
                            <br>
                            maybe not an issue.
                            <br>
                            <br>
                            If Maxi wants to be a member, I guess he is
                            one. @Maxi, feel free
                            <br>
                            to add yourself to the current members list
                            <br>
                            <br>
                            Steven
                            <br>
                            <br>
                            <br>
                            <blockquote type="cite">
                              <blockquote type="cite">On 24 May 2016, at
                                15:19, Venkatesh Raghavan
                                <br>
                                <
                                <br>
                                <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com">venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a>
                                <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com"><mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com></a>
                                <br>
                                <blockquote type="cite">wrote:
                                  <br>
                                </blockquote>
                                <br>
                                On 2016/05/24 20:13, Cameron Shorter
                                wrote:
                                <br>
                                Conference Committee,
                                <br>
                                I'd like to propose that we invite
                                Andrea Ross to join the OSGeo
                                <br>
                                Conference Committee.
                                <br>
                                <br>
                              </blockquote>
                              Firstly, we need to decide on the request
                              from Maxi to join
                              <br>
                              the conference committee which was
                              seconded by me.
                              <br>
                              <br>
                              Venka
                              <br>
                              <br>
                              <br>
                              <blockquote type="cite">+1 from me,
                                Cameron Shorter.
                                <br>
                                <br>
                                My reasoning is that Andrea has a lot of
                                experience running
                                <br>
                                conferences,
                                <br>
                                especially through his involvement with
                                LocationTech, and there are
                                <br>
                                synergies that could be gained by
                                aligning OSGeo and LocationTech
                                <br>
                                effectively.
                                <br>
                                <br>
                                I note that there have been concerns
                                aired previously about
                                <br>
                                LocationTech
                                <br>
                                competing to take over OSGeo's flagship
                                FOSS4G event. I'm of the
                                <br>
                                opinion
                                <br>
                                that we should be mindful of this, but
                                we should discuss the options
                                <br>
                                openly and I believe we can find a
                                solution favourable for all. An
                                <br>
                                effective way to support this
                                conversation is to invite Andrea
                                <br>
                                to be one
                                <br>
                                vote among our conference committee.
                                <br>
                                <br>
                                Warm regards, Cameron
                                <br>
                                <br>
                                <br>
                                <blockquote type="cite">On 24/05/2016
                                  6:31 am, Andrea Ross wrote:
                                  <br>
                                  Dear Steven, & Everyone
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  I've not been invited to the
                                  conference committee, but I will be in
                                  <br>
                                  Bonn, and I'm always glad to
                                  chat/meet.
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  Kind regards,
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  Andrea
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  On May 22, 2016 3:04:03 AM EDT, Steven
                                  Feldman
                                  <br>
                                  <
                                  <br>
                                  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>
                                  <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com></a>
                                  <br>
                                  <blockquote type="cite">
                                    <br>
                                  </blockquote>
                                  wrote:
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  Who is going to be in Bonn for FOSS4G?
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  It's an opportunity for the Conference
                                  Committee and interested
                                  <br>
                                  people to meet face to face, we could
                                  discuss some of the topics on
                                  <br>
                                  the 'outstanding
                                  <br>
                                  list'
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities</a>
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities"><http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities></a>
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  and we could start preparing the call
                                  for 2018
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  Anyone interested?
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  Steven
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  Conference_dev mailing list
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
                                  <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
                                  <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
_______________________________________________
                                  <br>
                                  Conference_dev mailing list
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
                                  <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
_______________________________________________
                                  <br>
                                  Conference_dev mailing list
                                  <br>
                                  <br>
                                  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
                                  <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
                                  <br>
                                </blockquote>
                              </blockquote>
_______________________________________________
                              <br>
                              Conference_dev mailing list
                              <br>
                              <br>
                              <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
                              <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
                              <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
                              <br>
                            </blockquote>
_______________________________________________
                            <br>
                            Conference_dev mailing list
                            <br>
                            <br>
                            <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
                            <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
                            <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
                            <br>
                          </blockquote>
_______________________________________________
                          <br>
                          Conference_dev mailing list
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
                          <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
                          <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
                          <br>
                        </blockquote>
                        _______________________________________________
                        <br>
                        Conference_dev mailing list
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
                        <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
                        <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
                        <br>
                      </blockquote>
                    </blockquote>
                  </blockquote>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  _______________________________________________
                  <br>
                  Board mailing list
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a>
                  <br>
                  <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                </blockquote>
              </blockquote>
              <br>
              --
              <br>
              Cameron Shorter,
              <br>
              Software and Data Solutions Manager
              <br>
              LISAsoft
              <br>
              Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
              <br>
              26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
              <br>
              <br>
              P +61 2 9009 5000,  W
              <br>
              <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>,  F +61 2 9009 5099
              <br>
              <br>
              _______________________________________________
              <br>
              Conference_dev mailing list
              <br>
              <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
              <br>
              <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
              <br>
              _______________________________________________
              <br>
              Board mailing list
              <br>
              <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a>
              <br>
              <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a>
              <br>
            </blockquote>
            <br>
            _______________________________________________
            <br>
            Conference_dev mailing list
            <br>
            <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
            <br>
            <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
            <br>
          </blockquote>
          <br>
          Helena Mitasova
          <br>
          Professor at the Department of Marine,
          <br>
          Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
          <br>
          and Center for Geospatial Analytics
          <br>
          North Carolina State University
          <br>
          Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
          <br>
          <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:hmitaso@ncsu.edu">hmitaso@ncsu.edu</a>
          <br>
          <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html">http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html</a>
          <br>
          <br>
          "All electronic mail messages in connection with State
          business which are sent to or received by this account are
          subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
          third parties.”
          <br>
          <br>
          _______________________________________________
          <br>
          Conference_dev mailing list
          <br>
          <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
          <br>
          <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
          <br>
        </blockquote>
        <br>
        _______________________________________________
        <br>
        Conference_dev mailing list
        <br>
        <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
        <br>
        <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      _______________________________________________
      <br>
      Conference_dev mailing list
      <br>
      <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
      <br>
      <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>,  F +61 2 9009 5099</pre>
  </body>
</html>