<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>Thanks Steven. I agree in giving flexibility in proposing to the LOC and that some elements can be considered as plus for voting for one or another proposal. </div>
<div>About the cost (personally I prefer cheaper solution) in my opinion 650 has to be put as maximum fee and then we have to specify for how many days.</div>
<div>Cheers!</div>
<div>Maria </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="x_composer_signature">
<div style="font-size:85%; color:#575757">Sent from my Samsung device</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
From: Eli Adam <eadam@co.lincoln.or.us> <br>
Date: 20/09/2016 20:02 (GMT+01:00) <br>
To: Steven Feldman <shfeldman@gmail.com> <br>
Cc: OSGeo-Conf <conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org>, OSGeo Board <board@lists.osgeo.org>
<br>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2018 Draft Request for Proposals document for comment
<br>
<br>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Thanks for leading this RfP process Steven. It is a great improvement<br>
in streamlining over the one I did last year.<br>
<br>
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
> Hi<br>
><br>
> I haven’t received many comments on the draft RfP. I hope that indicates<br>
> broad agreement rather than that you haven’t had time to read it (it is a<br>
> good bit shorter than previous years)<br>
><br>
> I have received comments from Daniel and Till which I summarise below<br>
><br>
> Change dates to ISO format yyyy-mm-dd (DM, done)<br>
><br>
><br>
> The following are from Till:<br>
><br>
> Extend period for submitting full proposals by 2-3 weeks (I am minded to<br>
> extend by 2 weeks which pushes announcement back to 2016-12-19)<br>
> Should we require the gala event to be included in the conference ticket<br>
> price as has been the practice in recent years or do we wish to make it<br>
> optional to reduce delegate fees? Or do we leave to the LOC as currently in<br>
> the RfP? (my view leave to LOC to decide)<br>
<br>
On most things, I think that flexibility for the LOC is better.<br>
<br>
> Should the student awards be run by the Academic Track team or the Geo4All<br>
> team? (my view is this should be Geo4All)<br>
<br>
We can't really speak for other people and groups. The LOC should<br>
appropriately delegate this.<br>
<br>
> Include a requirement to appoint an OSGeo financial representative to the<br>
> LOC if OSGeo is providing seed funding and a guarantee (I agree with this<br>
> recommendation)<br>
<br>
Yes, this is fine to include. It might also be included in the seed<br>
funding agreement. Maybe we should just add the seed funding<br>
agreement as an appendix or link reference?<br>
<br>
> Should we have a template for the full proposal? It would save LOC’s from<br>
> spending too much money on drafting a fancy proposal. And it would imporove<br>
> comparability of the bids. Alternatively we could make the key elements list<br>
> of the RfP a mandatory structure? (I think this is a great idea but I am not<br>
> sure that we have time to do a proper job this year)<br>
<br>
Either way is fine. There are certainly benefits for comparing the<br>
bids, however, then all bids would be in some ways very similar, no<br>
real dramatic changes if a LOC were inclined to bid something entirely<br>
different.<br>
<br>
> Budget template - should we make it mandatory to use our template? (I’m not<br>
> sure, people have their own way of budgeting, once they add in lines and<br>
> columns comparability becomes difficult)<br>
<br>
In the past, budgets seem too different. There are some main things<br>
that get noticed (venue, food, hotel commitments, etc).<br>
<br>
> Add a requirement for a risk assessment. What costs arise, how many months<br>
> before the event, if you have to cancel. What if your estimated income on<br>
> sponsorship is unrealistic? (Excellent suggestion)<br>
<br>
Sounds good but I think that we have to acknowledge the reality that<br>
FOSS4G is a daunting event with so many late registrations and<br>
sponsorships and early large expenses. Every year goes through a very<br>
concerned period of time. If our reality doesn't reflect that, then<br>
this hurts instead of helps. Also, once you articulate the reality,<br>
then it perhaps seems unnecessary since it includes a period of time<br>
of high risk.<br>
<br>
> Require timing to be September rather than August which is easier for the<br>
> European community (not sure I agree, no time will be perfect for everyone)<br>
<br>
I prefer LOC flexibility. September bids are more likely to get votes<br>
from me but as we saw in the past, there can be three August bids.<br>
We'll see how this works out with first attendance numbers from Bonn<br>
and second Boston. Venues can be tough with scheduling.<br>
<br>
<br>
> The full delegate fee target of $650 should be for conference only (early<br>
> bird?) with extra charge for workshops (I agree re NA and EU but I hope that<br>
> a RoW event could show us how to run for less)<br>
<br>
Sounds reasonable that workshops are extra.<br>
<br>
> If an event is proposing to offer a lower cost option we should point out<br>
> that we expect a professional well organised conference (I agree but wonder<br>
> if that needs to be said or should be in the evaluation criteria)<br>
<br>
Evaluation criteria and voting seem the more appropriate place to<br>
apply this. If you are bidding to present *The* Premier Open Source<br>
Geospatial Conference and don't know this, then you have no chance<br>
anyway.<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
> My responses are included in the brackets following each point. Unless<br>
> others disagree strongly I will implement these changes on Thursday. I have<br>
> also corrected a few typos and minor phrasings pointed out by Till.<br>
><br>
<br>
I'm good with any changes how you make them. My general comment is<br>
that LOC flexibility is a good thing and reflects the reality of how<br>
these conferences get accomplished.<br>
<br>
Best regards, Eli<br>
<br>
> If anyone has more comments or suggestions that they wish to make please get<br>
> them to me by 18.00 GMT on 21st September. Please state whether your<br>
> proposed change is a publication blocker if not incorporated, I will do my<br>
> best to incorporate changes.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ______<br>
> Steven<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 15 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Steven Feldman <shfeldman@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
><br>
> All<br>
><br>
> After several early drafts and wise advice from Cameron and Eli, here is the<br>
> final draft of the RfP document for FOSS4G 2018.<br>
><br>
> A little background to the changes:<br>
><br>
> 1) The old RfP ran out at 58 pages with some long appendices. I have reduced<br>
> the document to 12 pages by pushing the appendix of past reports to a page<br>
> on the wiki and by cross referencing as much stuff as possible to the wiki<br>
> (which also ensures that it is more likely to remain current)<br>
><br>
> 2) The document is designed to be as generic as possible. It should need<br>
> little change for 2019 etc unless we change major policy or processes.<br>
><br>
> 3) The document is structured with all key information and dates in 2 tables<br>
> at the beginning which are cross referenced throughout the doc<br>
><br>
> 4) References to delegate prices and concessions have been left sufficiently<br>
> open to allow/encourage bidders to suggest innovative models<br>
><br>
> 5) There is specific reference to the availability of seed finance and the<br>
> expectations of return to OSGeo if we provide funding.<br>
><br>
> 6) In the past we had a complex voting system which required committee<br>
> members to rank all proposals. We did not actually use that voting system<br>
> and each member voted for one proposal. I have proposed a 1st and 2nd choice<br>
> system (2nd choices are only used if there is a tie at the 1st vote stage)<br>
><br>
> Please comment on the RfP by 18.00 GMT on Wednesday 21st, I need to<br>
> integrate any changes before publishing the RfP on 23rd.<br>
><br>
> Board members if you have any comments could you please post into this<br>
> thread on Conference list rather than the board list.<br>
><br>
> Potential FOSS4G bidders should be aware that this draft is subject to<br>
> community comment and possible revision<br>
><br>
> May the FOSS be with you<br>
> ______<br>
> Steven<br>
><br>
> <FOSS4G2018-request-for-proposal-Final.pdf><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Conference_dev mailing list<br>
> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a></div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>