[OSGeo-Conf] My comments and thoughts on the 2011 proposal

[Eric Wolf]

Jeff,

Thanks for the positive comments! I will transfer your questions to the Wiki
as well as answer them here:

> - I like that you state that the LOC will be made up of one OSGeo Board
> member.  In fact I would like to at least 2 OSGeo officers be part of the
> committee: an OSGeo board member, and also myself as the OSGeo Conference
> Chair.  As you mentioned, we would be there only to provide advice through
> your process.
>

We have intentionally tried to keep the number of OSGeo board members on the
LOC to a minimum during the bid process. We would appreciate as much
participation as possible from the OSGeo board and the conference committee
once the final decision has been made for us to host FOSS4G 2011.


> - from traveling I know how difficult it can be to get an entry VISA for
> certain countries.  Is the LOC ready to handle a large volume of invitation
> letters and VISA related document requests from potential attendees?
>

Both GITA and the Denver Visitor's Bureau will be able to assist us with the
VISA process. Seeing how the US government gets a little "cranky" from
time-to-time about foreigners, I would suggest we put together a
sub-committee focusing on international VISAs. The sub-committee could be
chaired by someone with strong personal knowledge of the process.


> - FOSS4G workshops have always included a workstation with software
> installed and ready.  It is a trusted selling feature for our FOSS4G event
> and I don't want to get away from this successful recipe.  Will the LOC
> consider renting machines for the workshops?
>
> - With workshops in demand, we should be charging more than $100, and this
> extra cost can cover the rental machines
>

You aren't the first person to bring up this specific issue. This is
becoming more contentious than we originally thought. Two possible answers
could be:

1. A variable ala-cart workshop pricing model (Where 2.0 and GIS in the
Rockies have used this successfully). Have two workshop tracks. One with
machines, one without. Workshops requiring equipment would be more
expensive. Workshops using live systems could be cheaper.

2. Reducing the "free" food in the proposed budget could cut the
registration cost significantly. This makes it easier to charge more for the
workshops.

- I do not see a mention of a student rate for the conference fee.  To me
> students are the future (and our topics are always more understood by the
> younger generations anyway)
>

Our initial budget was designed for simplicity. Adding more registration
levels adds complexity that we felt was overwhelming for the initial
proposal (same with workshops). Per Cameron's request, I am trying to put
together a more detailed attendee analysis. I can try to factor in student
(and other) pricing levels. I know Where 2.0 and other conferences have used
discount codes as an effective marketing tool.

- I think I see a program with 1 day of workshops, 2.5 days of talks, and
> possibly 3 days of code sprints.  Wow.  As someone mentioned, I could see 1
> or 1.5 days of workshops, 3.5-4 days of talks, and then 1 day of code sprint
> (trust me, by the time you get to a code sprint we all have only a little
> bit of energy left).
>

We originally were trying to design the code sprint as more of an "after
conference" for code contributors, complete with a separate social event. I
have put forward the idea of dropping a "code sprint" and setting up an
unconference, WhereCamp5280, to occur immediately after the conference. I am
interested to see what other members of the Denver LOC have to say about
that idea.

-Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20100527/4bebfa7d/attachment.html