[OSGeo-Conf] Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Mon Sep 4 08:09:53 PDT 2017

+1 on allowing bidders flexibility on the dates that they propose.

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:

> +1 - fully agreed. So we wil lhint on our regular time period, but let the
> bidding teams propose their favoured times.
>
> I just wanted to start a discussion around this and detect the opinions
> around that.
>
> (Now knowing, that also is an option in the meaning of some members of CC,
> I feel less guilty because we @Bonn started this August-dates ;-))
>
>
> Till
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 03.09.2017 19:59, schrieb Steven Feldman:
>
> +1 to everything MT has said below re dates
>
> I’d also add that moving to September may well mean a clash with the
> Jewish High Holy Days which often land in September or early October. No
> date choice works for everyone!
>
> Let’s live the choice of date open to bidders and ask them to give some
> explanation of the reason for their choice and the outline  possible
> options to move to another date/venue at a different cost (if any)
> ______
> Steven
>
>
> On 3 Sep 2017, at 18:29, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com> wrote:
>
> Just one note on dates coming in the wake of Boston where we heard loud,
> and often about our mid-August time period. And, as has been pointed out,
> this timing did not deter our ability to attract a record number of
> delegates:
>
>    1. No time period is good for everyone. Some people are on vacation in
>    August. Other people have significant academic calendar challenges with
>    September. There will *always* be some people disappointed/frustrated
>    by a given date. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the
>    conference to declare that August vacations are more/less important than
>    other legitimate conflicts with other time periods.
>    2. At least in the US, there are significant cost and availability
>    variations between August and September/October. Boston would have been a
>    more expensive conference, with more expensive lodging had it been held in
>    September.
>    3. Indeed, while August does mean that some people who are on vacation
>    cannot come, it is likely that it also opened up an ability for others to
>    come who might not have been able to make a September date (hence the good
>    attendance figures from the past 2 August conferences).
>
> From my vantage, it is OK to have a conference that moves around an August
> - October time period. The specific conference date is chosen by the
> CC/Board and based on what was proposed. I do not believe it is in the best
> long term interest of the conference to have iron-clad limits on what might
> be proposed.
>
> Reading from afar, it looks like very good work, with predictable
> challenges attempting to be addressed (i.e., cost containment; data
> selection; etc.). Best of luck in getting the RFP for 2019 on the street.
>
> MT
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Till,
>>
>> Thanks so much for taking the lead on this. In our do-ocracy your vote
>> counts for much.
>>
>> Re selecting dates, I agree we have diverse opinions on dates and are not
>> likely to agree, but lets not have our committee members select a
>> conference venue based on date proposed, (which might be the case if the
>> opinions voiced here is the case). It is not fair to the cities putting in
>> proposals.
>>
>> We should collectively work out our opinion as a committee, and provide
>> that information to proposers. Maybe do a poll of voting committee members
>> for date ranges, and present that information to proposing cities.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31/8/17 11:58 pm, Till Adams wrote:
>>
>>> Hi CC,
>>>
>>> based on the discussion that already took pace in the past 2 hours, I
>>> think we will not find an agreement, that satisfies everybody here. I'd
>>> suggest to follow Steven (let the bidding teams suggest their prefered
>>> date) and add a comment, that teams should line out, what an alternative
>>> date would mean in sight of costs or other circumstances (in Bonn they
>>> tourist office simply told me, that they could not block as many
>>> accommodations as needed).
>>>
>>> So, if a bidding team suggests a date, that lies in "normal" holiday
>>> periods (I know, that holidays vary from year to year, in Germany they do
>>> it for every state every year), we could please them to briefly line out
>>> what an alternative date in, let's say, September would mean.
>>>
>>> I'd more prefer, if anybody from CC (except Steven, he is on holidays
>>> ;-)) could make comments on my time schedule for the RFP... ;-)
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 31.08.2017 15:51, schrieb Dirk Frigne:
>>>
>>>> IMHO was Bonn (2016) during the last week of August. Boston (2017) was
>>>> August 15, which is a holiday and in the middle of the holiday season.
>>>>
>>>> my2c.
>>>>
>>>> btw, how many visitors where in Boston?
>>>>
>>>> On 31-08-17 15:17, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Several members of our community have pointed out that it is an issue
>>>>> for them to attend, e.g. Jeroen Ticheler pointed this out before. For
>>>>> me
>>>>> this is the same, I normally can't attend a conference in the school
>>>>> vacation. Boston wasn't possible. Bonn was barely possible because
>>>>> schools had just started that week (but some years school vacation will
>>>>> be until early September even due to regional rotation).
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at attendance figures and saying it's no big issue doesn't
>>>>> really give the right attention to the problem IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also even if the venue might be cheaper, I'm sure flights and
>>>>> accommodation will be expensive in the European holiday season.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bart
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 31-08-17 15:03, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2016 was in august and attracted 940/950 people
>>>>>> 2017 was in august and attracted 1140 people
>>>>>> That's record attendance 2 years running (in August)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't look like August is a big issue for us in the northern
>>>>>> hemisphere.
>>>>>> I also heard from some of the organisers that they were able to obtain
>>>>>> lower rates for venues in August
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should leave it to LOCs to propose the dates that work for
>>>>>> them based on regional holiday patterns, pricing, weather and any
>>>>>> other constraints they may have
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now I'm going back to my end of august holiday ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31 Aug 2017, at 13:15, María Arias de Reyna <delawen at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference
>>>>>>>> dates:
>>>>>>>> I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or
>>>>>>>> maybe also
>>>>>>>> cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also
>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>> that there have been some problems for people attending the
>>>>>>>> conferences in
>>>>>>>> 2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe
>>>>>>>> we can
>>>>>>>> also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> conference in August?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
>>>>>>> northern summer may look appealing to people that go to conferences
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
>>>>>>> family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
>>>>>>> from work, this is a major issue.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing listConference_dev at lists.osgeo.orghttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20170904/462e23d9/attachment.html>