<DIV>Hi everyone,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I would suggest <U>foss4geo.org</U>to make things simple.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All conferences afterwards can be titled <U>foss4geo2008.org</U>, <U>foss4geo2009.org, etc.</U> or they can be tied under the <U>foss4geo.org</U>tree as such: <U>foss4geo.org/2008, foss4geo.org/2009, etc.</U><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The domain is available and one can easily move forward with the above suggestion, without stepping on existing sites that are promoting FOSS for Geospatial.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers,<BR>Dean</DIV>
<DIV><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: Jason Birch <Jason.Birch@nanaimo.ca><BR>Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2007 3:48 pm<BR>Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Conf] Logo for FOSS4G 2008<BR>To: conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<BR><BR>> Full disclosure: I feel that we would be better served by <BR>> using OSGeo<BR>> as part of the conference's name, primarily because of the branding<BR>> feedback cycle this would generate. Also, because I had a <BR>> _really_ hard<BR>> time publicising foss4g. Anything with a number-<BR>> substitution in the<BR>> title is extremely hard to communicate verbally, especially for things<BR>> like URLs. "fossforg" anyone?<BR>> <BR>> In light of my opinion, this will probably come across as sour grapes,<BR>> but I am not entirely happy about the way that the original <BR>> decision was<BR>> made. It seems that it was _not_ by committee, but by <BR>> anyone who<BR>> happened to be listening on the committee mailing list at the <BR>> time and<BR>> wanted to vote (the number of votes did not tally with the <BR>> number of<BR>> committee members)<BR>> <BR>> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2006-<BR>> November/000150.html<BR>> <BR>> Apart from this (possibly irrelavent) discrepancy, I feel that the<BR>> conference branding decision should at a minimum have involved the<BR>> visibility committee, and (not sure if this was done last time)<BR>> ratification by the board. Reading the motion to form the <BR>> committee,I'm not convinced that the naming decision was <BR>> explicitly within its<BR>> mandate<BR>> (http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Motion_to_form_Conference_Committee)<BR>> though it could be argued that it was an implicit responsibility.<BR>> <BR>> In my opinion, this decision should involve the entire charter<BR>> membership, like the initial branding of OSGeo, or possibly even the<BR>> entire self-identifying membership.<BR>> <BR>> Jason<BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Jeff McKenna<BR>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Logo for FOSS4G 2008<BR>> <BR>> > <BR>> > Then perhaps the naming debate could continue after that :)<BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> I'm not so sure of that. I think we handled the naming issue decision<BR>> properly.<BR>> <BR>> --<BR>> jeff<BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Conference_dev mailing list<BR>> Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org<BR>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev<BR>> </DIV><BR><BR>Dean C. Mikkelsen, B.Sc., P.Eng.
<br>Terra ETL Ltd.
<br>Victoria, B.C., Canada
<br>Phone: +1 (250) 361-6672
<br>http://www.terraetl.com
<br>
<br>Consulting in Geodesy & GIS for the Natural Resources</BR></BR>