<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear All,<br>
<br>
Page 7, mentions<br>
<br>
"it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated
will be donated to<br>
OSGeo."<br>
<br>
I was wondering if donating back 85% of surplus to OSGeo was
mentioned in<br>
the previous RfP's. There was a discussion at the CC f2f in Bonn
[1]<br>
a lower expectation of the share of surplus being returned to
OSGeo when<br>
FOSS4G is organized in/by communities of the Low or Lower-Middle
Income <br>
Economies. I wonder if that can be mentioned in the RfP.<br>
<br>
Page 9<br>
<br>
"The last two conferences have been held in the month of August,
previously conferences and some continuity<br>
is desirable."<br>
<br>
Could be changed to<br>
<br>
"Past FOSS4G conferences have been held during August-September
period and some continuity is desirable."<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Venka<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2016/09/21 3:21, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8hpdyj9pwtx1d1ghmsb127dc.1474395480363@email.android.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
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.
Cheers!
Maria
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: Eli Adam <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:eadam@co.lincoln.or.us"><eadam@co.lincoln.or.us></a>
Date: 20/09/2016 20:02 (GMT+01:00)
To: Steven Feldman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><shfeldman@gmail.com></a>
Cc: OSGeo-Conf <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>, OSGeo Board <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:board@lists.osgeo.org"><board@lists.osgeo.org></a>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2018 Draft Request for Proposals document for comment
Thanks for leading this RfP process Steven. It is a great improvement
in streamlining over the one I did last year.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Steven Feldman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><shfeldman@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi
I haven’t received many comments on the draft RfP. I hope that indicates
broad agreement rather than that you haven’t had time to read it (it is a
good bit shorter than previous years)
I have received comments from Daniel and Till which I summarise below
Change dates to ISO format yyyy-mm-dd (DM, done)
The following are from Till:
Extend period for submitting full proposals by 2-3 weeks (I am minded to
extend by 2 weeks which pushes announcement back to 2016-12-19)
Should we require the gala event to be included in the conference ticket
price as has been the practice in recent years or do we wish to make it
optional to reduce delegate fees? Or do we leave to the LOC as currently in
the RfP? (my view leave to LOC to decide)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
On most things, I think that flexibility for the LOC is better.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Should the student awards be run by the Academic Track team or the Geo4All
team? (my view is this should be Geo4All)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
We can't really speak for other people and groups. The LOC should
appropriately delegate this.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Include a requirement to appoint an OSGeo financial representative to the
LOC if OSGeo is providing seed funding and a guarantee (I agree with this
recommendation)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes, this is fine to include. It might also be included in the seed
funding agreement. Maybe we should just add the seed funding
agreement as an appendix or link reference?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Should we have a template for the full proposal? It would save LOC’s from
spending too much money on drafting a fancy proposal. And it would imporove
comparability of the bids. Alternatively we could make the key elements list
of the RfP a mandatory structure? (I think this is a great idea but I am not
sure that we have time to do a proper job this year)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Either way is fine. There are certainly benefits for comparing the
bids, however, then all bids would be in some ways very similar, no
real dramatic changes if a LOC were inclined to bid something entirely
different.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Budget template - should we make it mandatory to use our template? (I’m not
sure, people have their own way of budgeting, once they add in lines and
columns comparability becomes difficult)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
In the past, budgets seem too different. There are some main things
that get noticed (venue, food, hotel commitments, etc).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Add a requirement for a risk assessment. What costs arise, how many months
before the event, if you have to cancel. What if your estimated income on
sponsorship is unrealistic? (Excellent suggestion)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Sounds good but I think that we have to acknowledge the reality that
FOSS4G is a daunting event with so many late registrations and
sponsorships and early large expenses. Every year goes through a very
concerned period of time. If our reality doesn't reflect that, then
this hurts instead of helps. Also, once you articulate the reality,
then it perhaps seems unnecessary since it includes a period of time
of high risk.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Require timing to be September rather than August which is easier for the
European community (not sure I agree, no time will be perfect for everyone)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I prefer LOC flexibility. September bids are more likely to get votes
from me but as we saw in the past, there can be three August bids.
We'll see how this works out with first attendance numbers from Bonn
and second Boston. Venues can be tough with scheduling.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The full delegate fee target of $650 should be for conference only (early
bird?) with extra charge for workshops (I agree re NA and EU but I hope that
a RoW event could show us how to run for less)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Sounds reasonable that workshops are extra.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If an event is proposing to offer a lower cost option we should point out
that we expect a professional well organised conference (I agree but wonder
if that needs to be said or should be in the evaluation criteria)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Evaluation criteria and voting seem the more appropriate place to
apply this. If you are bidding to present *The* Premier Open Source
Geospatial Conference and don't know this, then you have no chance
anyway.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
My responses are included in the brackets following each point. Unless
others disagree strongly I will implement these changes on Thursday. I have
also corrected a few typos and minor phrasings pointed out by Till.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I'm good with any changes how you make them. My general comment is
that LOC flexibility is a good thing and reflects the reality of how
these conferences get accomplished.
Best regards, Eli
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If anyone has more comments or suggestions that they wish to make please get
them to me by 18.00 GMT on 21st September. Please state whether your
proposed change is a publication blocker if not incorporated, I will do my
best to incorporate changes.
______
Steven
On 15 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Steven Feldman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><shfeldman@gmail.com></a> wrote:
All
After several early drafts and wise advice from Cameron and Eli, here is the
final draft of the RfP document for FOSS4G 2018.
A little background to the changes:
1) The old RfP ran out at 58 pages with some long appendices. I have reduced
the document to 12 pages by pushing the appendix of past reports to a page
on the wiki and by cross referencing as much stuff as possible to the wiki
(which also ensures that it is more likely to remain current)
2) The document is designed to be as generic as possible. It should need
little change for 2019 etc unless we change major policy or processes.
3) The document is structured with all key information and dates in 2 tables
at the beginning which are cross referenced throughout the doc
4) References to delegate prices and concessions have been left sufficiently
open to allow/encourage bidders to suggest innovative models
5) There is specific reference to the availability of seed finance and the
expectations of return to OSGeo if we provide funding.
6) In the past we had a complex voting system which required committee
members to rank all proposals. We did not actually use that voting system
and each member voted for one proposal. I have proposed a 1st and 2nd choice
system (2nd choices are only used if there is a tie at the 1st vote stage)
Please comment on the RfP by 18.00 GMT on Wednesday 21st, I need to
integrate any changes before publishing the RfP on 23rd.
Board members if you have any comments could you please post into this
thread on Conference list rather than the board list.
Potential FOSS4G bidders should be aware that this draft is subject to
community comment and possible revision
May the FOSS be with you
______
Steven
<FOSS4G2018-request-for-proposal-Final.pdf>
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>