[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G metrics?

[Eli Adam]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> As soon as you have the time, I'd encourage you to go ahead with your suggestion of removing the old redundant tabs and recreating the new graphs based on the new table cells.
>
> I've used the google sheets version history feature to label the current version, so we can find the old tabs if we need to.
>
> I'd ideally like to keep the URL of the old spreadsheet so we don't need to locate and update references on the web to the old spreadsheet. But I tried to move your sheets over to the old new URL and couldn't work out an easy way to do that. So lets just go with the new URL. I think there are only 2 places on the web which reference the old URL.

There are probably a few references in the email list archives as
well.  We may want to consider this going forward and instead of
referencing a google spreadsheet url, make a landing page on the wiki
or website for this information that points to one or more google
sheets (or any other future system).  If it is a url that we control,
we can make it say or redirect how we like.  In fact, we seem to
already have this, https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Metrics [2].
(It currently points to the email list archive, but we could change
this).

Best regards, Eli

[2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Metrics

>
> Thanks for all your effort so far, Cameron
>
>
>
> On 29/6/18 1:17 am, michael terner wrote:
>
> Cameron:
> Glad to hear that this seems to be heading in the right direction. Below and in-line are my comments and suggestions for next steps:
>
> There are a few glitches with the data still: As you suggested, I agree that the old tabs (after "2006 Lausanne")  should be removed. However, your current graphs point to data from these tabs to be removed.
>
> YES, good point and I knew (but didn't recall) there was a reason I hadn't already move them. Ultimately, I think the cleanliness of the data (and removal of the PII in the older tabs) warrants "losing" those charts. And indeed, it would be relatively easy to recreate them based on the new tab.
>
> Re: Ownership: I think it should be owned by the OSGeo conference committee. Members of the conference committee who wish to update the spreadsheet should be provided with write access. The general public should be provided with read access.
>
> That is fine by me. I'm not sure if the Conference Committee has it's own GMail account, or who would control it. Right now, I own the document on my personal email account, and I am on the Conference Committee and am in a position to grant whatever access is determined to be best (including transferring ownership).
>
> Re: Regional events: As yet, I'm not aware of anyone collecting FOSS4G regional metrics, but I think they would be valuable to collect. The question is: Should we have a spreadsheet for each FOSS4G region, or should we have one spreadsheet which contains all regions and all years, or should we include into our current spreadsheet which only includes international events? I'd err on having one spreadsheet for each region.
>
> I would concur, that we shouldn't try and move regional events into this same spreadsheets. There is a tipping point for spreadsheets where they get bloated and unruly. Perhaps this kind of "one-tab-for-each-event, plus a summary tab" could be suggested for regional events that wish to track attendance?
>
> Please let me know what comes next. If you'd like view only access to the sheet for the short term, feel free to ping me, or just make a "request for access" through the Google mechanism and I will abide...
>
> MT
>
> PS: If you're curious, I've attached PDF that shows the "summary tab" of this new spreadsheet. This summary is powered by a separate tab that has the raw data for each preceding conference.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:20 AM Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> I've just reviewed your updated FOSSG4G metrics spreadsheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ux_hFq-C165140ZD48RRImPTHSpXj42OG3nBr9cyZYo/edit#gid=1782600951
>>
>> I like where you are heading with this, with an all years summary tab, followed by a tab for each conference.
>>
>> There are a few glitches with the data still: As you suggested, I agree that the old tabs (after "2006 Lausanne")  should be removed. However, your current graphs point to data from these tabs to be removed.
>>
>> Re: Ownership:
>>
>> I think it should be owned by the OSGeo conference committee. Members of the conference committee who wish to update the spreadsheet should be provided with write access. The general public should be provided with read access.
>>
>> Re: Regional events:
>>
>> As yet, I'm not aware of anyone collecting FOSS4G regional metrics, but I think they would be valuable to collect.
>>
>> The question is:
>>
>> * Should we have a spreadsheet for each FOSS4G region, or should we have one spreadsheet which contains all regions and all years, or should we include into our current spreadsheet which only includes international events?
>>
>> * I'd err on having one spreadsheet for each region.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21/6/18 7:57 am, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>>
>> Thanks!!!
>>
>> El mié., 20 jun. 2018 23:57, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> escribió:
>>>
>>> OSGeo conference committee,
>>>
>>> I'm bringing two conversations into this public conference email list.
>>>
>>> Some ideas here about updating metrics for the latest FOSS4G events.
>>>
>>> On 21/6/18 2:47 am, michael terner wrote:
>>>
>>> As per your second question on Boston metric, you and I exchanged emails late last year (December, I believe) about a new version of the sheet [1] that I created after noting that the older version you sent me had accumulated significant clutter and detritus over the years (while remaining very useful). Boston data is here, and there are placeholders for the missing Bonn data as well as for Dar es Salaam and Bucharest. I think this sheet is ready to be put in play, but would trust your judgment and welcome your input. Perhaps we can take this conversation to a separate thread and make some plans (e.g., Where does it live? Who should have edit access? How to announce its existence? Etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ux_hFq-C165140ZD48RRImPTHSpXj42OG3nBr9cyZYo/edit#gid=1782600951
>>>
>>> On 21/6/18 12:51 am, Till Adams wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>
>>> ups, just forgot about these. I will try to deliver these ASAP!
>>>
>>> Thanks for reminding,
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 20.06.2018 um 01:05 schrieb Cameron Shorter:
>>>
>>> Hi Till,
>>>
>>> I just noticed that we don't seem to have metrics for FOSS4G Bonn in
>>> our aggregate spreadsheet:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BpkO5WOFQ_DZEWNMLj_hAhEre0m0io_j-JGf7geAW5Y/edit#gid=57
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have such metrics available, and able to be depersonalised and
>>> put into this spreadsheet?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cameron Shorter
>>> Technology Demystifier
>>> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>>>
>>> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> Technology Demystifier
>> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>>
>> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Terner
> ternergeo at gmail.com
> (M) 978-631-6602
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Technology Demystifier
> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>
> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev