[OSGeo-Conf] 2011 Discussion

Thu Apr 16 10:47:05 EDT 2009

I don't have a vote either, but on reflection and looking at all the input
so far I think I would support option A, with a planned rotation of Europe,
North America, Other every three years. I agree with the observations that
having a planned rotation would make it a lot easier for local conference
organizers to make plans. This together with some of the suggestions for
OSGeo providing some support to local conferences would help a lot I think.

I support all of Gavin's comments. And I liked Dave M's suggestion that the
EOI process should have scope to open it up again if nobody submits a
proposal of sufficient quality (this would be the exception rather than the
rule, but the timing should be set up to allow this if necessary). Overall I
don't think it makes sense to be too wishy-washy about the geographic
rotation (allowing for exceptions etc), since this diminishes a lot of the
benefit in terms of people being able to plan (either for organizing local
conferences or planning a bid for the global one). I think we should just
decide it is Europe, North America, Other, unless there are some really
exceptional circumstances to force a change to this in a given year.

Lastly, and I think this can be treated as an independent issue, but I do
still think there is an important question that needs to be resolved in
terms of what OSGeo is really aiming for FOSS4G to be in future. As I've
talked about previously, there are two quite conflicting demands on it - one
to be more "developer friendly" - small, informal, inexpensive, etc, and one
to be a "sales venue" for OSGeo, to reach out to new users of open source -
which calls for it to be larger, more "professional" and "commercial", etc.
Maybe you can just leave this as a challenge for bidders to address, but
again I think it would be good to have a little more guidance from the
conference committee. One possible solution might be to have "back to back"
events addressing both aims (maybe with some overlap) so that the contingent
that is interested in both aspects can easily attend both (say a couple of
days focused more on outreach and a couple of days focused more on deep
technical stuff). You could do things in parallel too, but that makes it a
little harder to address concerns about atmosphere, type of venue, etc.

Anyway, I don't want to distract the main discussion onto that right now,
but I do think that it's worth some more thought on how to handle that
before the next call for expressions of interest (or whatever it will be
called!) goes out.

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com
> wrote:

> I don't have a vote but just wanted to add that I like Gavin's suggestions
> for handling/branding the regional events in parallel with the international
> one.
>
> I'd add one rule to the <regional conference policy>: In order to get OSGeo
> support, the date of the local conference should be at least 4 months away
> from the international FOSS4G. This is so that people who want to attend
> both can do so more easily.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> Gavin Fleming wrote:
>
>> I vote for [A]
>>
>> Some comments that I guess should have gone onto the wiki a while ago:
>>
>> The annual international conference is the flagship and has a unique
>> role including taking the message global and being the main meeting of
>> the tribes. The interaction of the core 'FOSS4G heads' that follow it
>> every year no matter where and the regional folk who are close enough to
>> attend, keeps it fresh, interesting and full of pleasant surprises. So
>> it's important to keep that going with all OSGeo's weight behind it.
>> Definitely include the expression of interest phase. I like the idea of
>> a NA-Europe-Other rotation but as a philosophy only. So, state it up
>> front in the RFP but if no EOIs come from the intended region or a
>> really compelling one comes from another region, be open to variations.
>> Let the EOI process reveal our implicit biases if you will.
>> As a special case for 2011 (and possibly beyond), I think it would be
>> only fair to invite previously unsuccessful yet high quality contenders
>> to submit EOIs. If they're then invited to do a full bid most of the
>> homework is done.
>> Definitely encourage and support regional or language-based conferences,
>> i.e. following the pattern of the Local Chapters. I think OSGeo needs to
>> develop a policy somewhat like this:
>> <regional conference policy>
>>
>> OSGeo will endorse and support one conference per year per local
>> chapter, to be called 'FOSS4G <local chapter name> <year>' and be
>> considered an official OSGeo event, bearing the OSGeo logo, etc.
>> One exception: The country that is hosting the International FOSS4G
>> conference won't qualify for any official regional FOSS4G conferences in
>> the same year.
>>
>> It is completely up to the local chapters to make these events happen if
>> they so wish.
>>
>> The conference has to meet these simple criteria:
>> <list of simple conditions tbd>
>>
>> OSGeo will provide support in the form of ....
>>
>> OSGeo may choose to send a member of the conference committee.
>>
>> The conference must be advertised widely and be open to anyone (i.e. not
>> restricted to the Local Chapter).
>>
>> Existing regional conferences with different names (e.g. German FOSSGIS
>> and Italian GFOSS?) can get the regional OSGeo FOSS4G stamp if they or
>> the local chapter so wish and they meet the criteria.
>> </regional conference policy>
>>
>> General comments:
>> Define what is meant by OSGeo support at regional and international
>> levels and be consistent with that. E.g. the RFP stated that OSGeo would
>> provide bridging funds yet we could not access these for 2008 and would
>> not have managed our cash flow without the local support of GISSA. And
>> what other forms of support are available or envisaged? Website, wiki
>> etc.
>> Tighten up the RFP and make the EOI and final selection processes more
>> transparent.
>>
>> Make a decision about conference website hosting and software and stick
>> with it and support it wholeheartedly. I feel 2008 was a bit of guinea
>> pig with OCS and it seems like 2009 has moved to yet another home grown
>> solution(s), which makes our aim of consistency and guranteed long term
>> availability of conference outputs difficult.
>> Move the RFP process even earlier again so we have AT LEAST two years
>> lead time for the international FOSS4G and set a few milestones to
>> ensure the LOC is on track an using that time properly, such as budget
>> approval, securing sponsorship, etc.
>>
>> Consider alternatives (such as the second-in-line bidder) as a
>> contingency if the winner doesn't meet major deadlines or suffers a
>> disaster. A real-life example is the last minute move of the massive
>> Indian Cricket IPL (http://www.iplt20.com) to South Africa with three
>> weeks notice (The decision was made on 23 March and it's starting on
>> Saturday) because it clashed with Indian elections.
>> Gavin
>> This message is intended for the addressee only. Information and
>> attachments in this e-mail may contain confidential, proprietary, or legally
>> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or
>> responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, any
>> disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken is prohibited and may
>> be unlawful, and could result in a claim against you.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Morissette
> http://www.mapgears.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>

-- 
Peter Batty - President, Spatial Networking
W: +1 303 339 0957  M: +1 720 346 3954
Blog: http://geothought.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20090416/f0138f86/attachment.html