[OSGeo-Conf] [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2017 RFP

Steven Feldman shfeldman at gmail.com
Tue Jul 28 08:58:40 PDT 2015 

+1 from me to everything Eli has said.

There was plenty of time to comment on the 2017 schedule before it was published.

I don’t see the problem in pulling together a LoI in a couple of hours and submitting before the deadline tomorrow (midnight PST?). The conference committee will need to consider how to incorporate voting on a ‘provisional” LoI in our voting process, but I am sure we can manage that.

______
Steven


> On 28 Jul 2015, at 16:34, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Andrew Ross <andrew.ross at eclipse.org> wrote:
>> On 27/07/15 21:02, Eli Adam wrote:
>>> 
>>> However, there are other aspects that make
>>> the proposed change unreasonable.
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Eli,
>> 
>> Would it be possible to share what these are?
> 
> I thought that I already explained these at length even using the word
> "unreasonable".  Your reply clipped all the explanation and context
> now put back in below.  It is unlikely that further talk from me will
> make these points clear for you.  Perhaps someone else will try to
> explain what I wrote or ask questions if it is unclear to them.
> 
> What Steven and I write and think doesn't really matter, if committee
> members overwhelming support the change, Steven and I will probably
> fall in line and go with the change even if we don't like it and think
> it is a bad idea.
> 
> Best regards, Eli
> 
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Andrew Ross <andrew.ross at eclipse.org> wrote:
>>> Steven,
>>> 
>>> In my opinion, the small delay that David requested is very reasonable given
>>> the time remaining before fall 2017.
>> 
>> I agree that it is a small delay.  I also agree that duration of delay
>> is potentially reasonable.  However, there are other aspects that make
>> the proposed change unreasonable.
>> 
>>> 
>>> For these cities, their attention was rightly focused on NA 2016. And they
>>> have become the short list out of a long list of other strong contenders for
>>> good reason. It would be a shame to lose them.
>> 
>> I suggest they both send LOI if they want and can even qualify them
>> with a "maybe".  The LOI is just formal qualification, it should take
>> no effort for either group which has been planning for North America
>> to answer these few questions
>> (https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2017/osgeo-conference-2017-request-for-proposal.pdf):
>> 
>> 1. Who is your conference chair?
>> 2. Who else is on your local organizing committee (LOC)?
>> 3. What is the experience of your committee members with similar events?
>> 4. What is your venue? (include access to Internet, room sizes,
>> maximum attendees)
>> 5. What is the price range and general location of your proposed
>> accommodations? (hotels)
>> 6. Are you partnering with other local organizations?
>> 7. What makes FOSS4G in your proposed location compelling?
>> 
>> They could even do a very lame email to the list which says, "City
>> [name] submits a provisional LOI, details forthcoming."
>> 
>>> 
>>> Andrew
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 27/07/15 16:09, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>> 
>>> We've already pushed the timeline back a bit. Everyone has been asking for
>>> us to make decisions earlier to give LOCs more time to book venues etc. it
>>> would be unfair to people who've worked to current schedule if we changed so
>>> late.
>> 
>> More importantly, we published the schedule after extensive review and
>> debate.  It is unreasonable to change a published schedule.  If this
>> request had been made before July 7th (when the RFP was announced), I
>> would have been receptive to such an idea (unless several committee
>> members were opposed to it).
>> 
>>> 
>>> I suggest that NC and PA get a LoI in within current deadlines, they can
>>> always withdraw after you make a decision for 2016 event
>> 
>> This seems like a reasonable and good course of action.  I'm mildly
>> concerned about four LOI each getting two votes to advance, especially
>> if one to two LOI are provisional.  I would maybe entertain the idea
>> of giving committee members two votes; one for definite LOI and one
>> for provisional LOI.  I would not want a sincere certain LOI to not
>> make it to full proposal stage since the votes went to a provisional
>> LOI that doesn't continue to full proposal.  Though, let's not worry
>> about this problem until after we receive provisional LOI.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> Steven
>>> 
>>> 
>>> +44 (0) 7958 924101
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On 27 Jul 2015, at 19:58, David William Bitner <bitner at dbspatial.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Eli and Conference Committee,
>>> 
>>> We are very closely approaching making a decision on the location for the
>>> 2016 FOSS4G North America  event. As many of you may have noticed, we have
>>> limited our choices to Raleigh, NC, and Philadelphia, PA. We are now at the
>>> point in the process where we are trying to finalize contract negotiations
>>> with the venues before we are able to announce the 2016 location. We are
>>> hoping to be able to complete this process by August 7th barring any
>>> significant issues arising but this may well take until the 14th.
>>> 
>>> We have been thrilled by the overwhelming excitement that we have seen from
>>> both the Raleigh and the Philly communities in bringing the North America
>> 
>> Great, good to hear!
>> 
>>> event to their communities and would like to make sure that they have the
>>> ability to come together to put together an LOI should they wish for the
>>> International event in 2017.
>>> 
>>> The FOSS4G North America selection committee would like to ask that the date
>>> for LOI's for the 2017 international event be pushed back to August 21st in
>>> order that either city can have time to create an LOI in the event that they
>>> are not selected for the 2016 NA event.
>> 
>> I think that Steven's suggestion of both cities sending a provisional
>> or conditional LOI if they are potentially interested is the best
>> course of action.  It is low effort and importantly to me, does not
>> change the published schedule.
>> 
>> Best regards, Eli
>> 
>>> 
>>> We are extremely excited to have such a strong group of candidates for all
>>> these events! Please feel free to ask Andrew Ross or myself if you have any
>>> questions regarding the FOSS4GNA process.
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> 
>>> David (OSGeo Conference Committee and FOSS4GNA Selection Committee member)
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The OSGeo Conference Committee is happy to announce the call for
>>>> hosting the FOSS4G 2017 event. Year after year, building on the
>>>> success of previous conferences, excitement builds for the next
>>>> FOSS4G! This year is no different with much excitement for Seoul,
>>>> South Korea (http://2015.foss4g.org/). OSGeo again plans to make the
>>>> 2017 event the geospatial conference of the year. Please see the
>>>> following page for the actual request for proposals document, as well
>>>> as upcoming important dates:
>>>> 
>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2017_Bid_Process
>>>> 
>>>> If you have any questions regarding the 2017 call for hosting, feel
>>>> free to send an email to the conference-dev mailing list (subscribe at
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev).
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> OSGeo Conference Committee
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ************************************
>>> David William Bitner
>>> dbSpatial LLC
>>> 612-424-9932
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list