<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Barry & Everyone<br>
<br>
Just a brief comment to mention that at FOSS4G NA 2015 in San
Francisco, OSGeo's logo was featured prominently above sponsors on
the web site. It was featured prominently in plenary sessions too
and Frank Warmerdam spoke on OSGeo's behalf at the opening and
closing.<br>
<br>
OSGeo's booth was prominently located. There weren't really any
bad spots, but I think it's fair to say the spot wasn't the
absolute best. I'm not sure that's really necessary though. A good
spot is sufficient IMHO.<br>
<br>
Additionally, for those interested, you'll note that a
complimentary booth & some complimentary full access passes
have been codified in the <a
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WlgmJgtl0LaV0EO0NtDDSnloTgsIvxu9KwddPDwX1WU/edit#heading=h.ltr64f1gqs2">governance
for FOSS4G NA</a>.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
On 03/09/15 05:18, Barry Rowlingson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANVKczOzMrX7MxoxV2QR-btsEMQSot0rD9raXeka6wVdw8aHTA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I've also noticed a decline, or at least a wild variability, in
prominence of "OSGeo" on FOSS4G web site front pages:
2007: "Presented by" + logo and link in sidebar.
2008: [CSS broken?]
2009: "Hosted by" in sidebar with OSGeo logo and link to osgeo.org
2010: "Hosted by" in sidebar with OSGeo logo and link to osgeo.org
2011: OSGeo mentioned in text, "...is brought to you by" + logo and
link in footer
2012: [No conference]
2013: "OSGeo's Global Conference" in main title. Logo in carousel. "is
a production of" + logo and link in footer
2014: "is a production of the OSGeo organization" in text of footer
with link. No logo at all.
2015: Mentioned in box at bottom. "Proudly hosted by OSGeo. Organized
by OSGeo Korean Chapter" in footer. No logo, no link.
Only 2009, 2010 and 2013 have the OSGeo logo "above the fold" (ie
visible on my screen without scrolling)
Surely OSGeo should have at least as much website prominence as the
top sponsors? For Nottingham, I think I wanted the "OSGeo's Global
Conference" tag line to be used for Nottingham 2013 to stress that
this wasn't a regional event and that it was an OSGeo event. Perhaps
that tag line should be encouraged?
If FOSS4G really is "Proudly hosted by OSGeo", then OSGeo really needs
to stop being so shy about it...
Barry
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Steven Feldman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><shfeldman@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Jeff
This shouldn't be a touchy subject. It should be a mandatory requirement on bidders for a FOSS4G
My suggestion - the organisers should provide a space of similar size and specifications to that offered to top level sponsors in a prominent location. OSGeo should be responsible for fitting out the stand and staffing it
If the conference committee agree we can make this a requirement for bidders for 2017 (and we can request it from 2016 as part of the guarantee agreement)
I suggest that we also require bidders for 2017 and beyond to provide details of any advances and guarantees that they require with supporting schedules as part of their proposals
Regards
Steven
+44 (0) 7958 924101
Sent from my iPhone
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 1 Sep 2015, at 21:36, Jeff McKenna <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com"><jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com></a> wrote:
Hello Conference Committee,
I would like to discuss something, that, in all honesty is a very touchy subject, as there never seems to be a good time to discuss this (I may offend current local committees, past local committees). So, this is a disclaimer: In this message I am not referring to any past or current FOSS4G. I am merely needing to explain the issue, so we can possibly handle this for future events. And I realize that the experienced Conference Committee members will know the best way to handle this from now on.
Each year I must contact the FOSS4G local committee and ask about an OSGeo booth. Now, the local committee has to please its sponsors and attract more sponsorship revenue and there is a lot of pressure on them for this reason. (OSGeo is never classed as a sponsor) Yet, here is OSGeo, the host of the event, the foundation who awarded the team the event, the foundation who provided the necessary seed money a year in advance, the foundation who gave the local committee the spotlight, and so on...asking for a booth as well.
On my (OSGeo) side, I want a large prominent booth; I do not want OSGeo to be given a small booth away from the main exhibition area, facing a wall etc. In fact, sure, I want OSGeo to have a double-booth, we want to be seen, to show that 'hey yes we are hosting this event, we are great, we do great things'.
The reality is that there is no requirement to give OSGeo a booth, as it is not mentioned in the FOSS4G RFP.
If it is not in the RFP (and here is where my tongue gets tied always) should I be asking the OSGeo Board for approval to become a platinum sponsor, of our own event, so we can get a great booth? Imagine that reaction. Then, what happens is I instead ask for a booth to the local committee, and they often do their best to give OSGeo a booth.
My question is: should the OSGeo Conference Committee be including the OSGeo exhibition booth as a requirement for hosting FOSS4G, by adding this to the RFP; or should the OSGeo Board be looking at ways to become platinum sponsors for FOSS4G as well?
I really feel that this should (well it is) become a requirement. If it is written in the RFP then this pressure is removed.
Does the OSGeo booth hurt the event's bottom line? (less sponsor space etc., less sponsor revenue) Yes this does open a can of worms, back to the focus/priority/goal of FOSS4G. And I also am acutely aware of OSGeo's lack of marketing committee and materials (it is funny how I/we are asking for great booth space, and yet we don't have professional marketing materials, I realize the irony here). Even still, this needs to be discussed openly.
But I feel that it is the OSGeo Conference Committee that can solve this.
Thanks for understanding,
-jeff
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>