<html><head></head><body>Jeff,<br>
<br>
You imply too much. I asked what it was you wanted to talk about because I felt someone from that meeting would be embarrassed if the full details, more than in the minutes, were revealed. I'm trying to keep discussions professional and classy.<br>
<br>
It's clear the discussion is being dragged into the muck, and I'm not going to participate in that decline. Politics of fear are easy. Politics of vision and inspiration, and collaboration are hard, but so much better and worth it.<br>
<br>
Andrea<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On November 9, 2015 5:18:03 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">Hi Andrea,<br /><br />I see that you have asked me offlist for more information before <br />speaking openly. I take that as an answer.<br /><br />Could you explain here why LocationTech and Eclipse foundation are not <br />interested in creating your own conference, and not stepping directly on <br />OSGeo's toes for our one event that we have worked on since 2006? I <br />think your own event, moving around the world to all of your members, <br />would be an excellent thing for your foundation. Is it the effort <br />involved? Or is it the "Google" mentality, where why building something <br />from scratch when we can purchase an existing entity and avoid all that <br />building?<br /><br />If your concern is the bad effect on OSGeo, please don't worry. FOSS4G <br />is about the community. The spirit of FOSS4G is alive and strong (you <br />witnessed the passion at FOSS4G-Seoul first hand). Could some speakers <br />and companies only attend the
LocationTech conference, of course! That <br />will happen, and it will help grow your foundation. Will FOSS4G survive <br />without any outside influence, yes of course! That will also happen, <br />and OSGeo will happily host FOSS4G all around the world every year, <br />whether it is a 150 people event or a 1000 people event.<br /><br />That our one FOSS4G event has become so attractive to business and <br />foundations is nothing new. I constantly get packages in the postal <br />mail from conference companies and cities from all over the world. <br />OSGeo has turned the yearly global FOSS4G event into a million dollar <br />revenue event. It is all thanks to the OSGeo community, local chapters <br />of all sizes located all around the world.<br /><br />I think OSGeo has and always will focus on our local chapters, and our <br />local communities. And with our annual FOSS4G event, we have been doing <br />a great job on that.<br /><br />Talk soon,<br /><br />-jeff<br
/><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />On 2015-11-09 10:46 AM, Jeff McKenna wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Andrea,<br /><br /> I am glad to speak publicly on this topic together. I will tell you<br /> directly that OSGeo's one yearly event is in fact hosted by OSGeo, for<br /> the OSGeo community. You are right that the OSGeo community wants to<br /> learn of projects that are under the OSGeo umbrella as well as those<br /> that are not, and those projects and foundations can of course submit<br /> abstracts for presentations and workshops.<br /><br /> I would like your permission to speak openly now (finally) and let the<br /> entire community know of what was said during our face to face meeting<br /> in FOSS4G Portland. I would like to share what was said there,<br /> publicly, so that everyone can understand the full picture.<br /><br /> Let me know if I can proceed
openly. Thanks,<br /><br /> -jeff<br /><br /><br /><br /> On 2015-11-09 10:15 AM, Andrea Ross wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"> Dear Jeff, & Everyone<br /><br /> Dave & Robert have already explained how the branding will work and how<br /> OSGeo's branding is not diminished in any way so there's not really much<br /> I can add.<br /><br /> I would like to touch on something Jeff has said because I feel it is<br /> important. Jeff, you mentioned "FOSS4G is for the OSGeo community to get<br /> together". This is a really good thing. It isn't the end of the story<br /> though.<br /><br /> As you know well, FOSS4G is much more than that. FOSS4G is also a<br /> meeting for many other projects & initiatives, and many that are not<br /> OSGeo projects. It is a better conference with all of them present. And<br /> this is what we're talking about.<br /><br /> FOSS4G can be both the
OSGeo community get together, AND a get together<br /> of the wider FOSS4G community. It can do so without anyone losing. There<br /> really is nothing to be afraid of.<br /><br /> One last thought, for what it's worth: Think about what attendees,<br /> speakers, and sponsors want. That's really important in this discussion.<br /> Without them there's not much to talk about.<br /><br /> Kind regards,<br /><br /> Andrea<br /><br /> On 09/11/15 14:46, Jeff McKenna wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Dave,<br /><br /> I've just had some nasty private messages sent to me now (not by you),<br /> threats, of "do you want LT to start their own event? Imagine if<br /> companies went there" etc. I'd like to answer those "threats" here.<br /><br /> I think we must be sure to keep the spirit of FOSS4G (and those people<br /> making the threats are missing the point). Really, FOSS4G is for the<br
/> OSGeo community to get together, a "meeting of the tribes". I don't<br /> see a problem with LT starting their own event, would be great, and if<br /> big business went there that also would be good, for LT and their<br /> members. FOSS4G would continue to be hosted by OSGeo, rotated around<br /> the world yearly.<br /><br /> I'd rather keep this dialogue public, with no private threats made.<br /> (but some are too cowardly to speak publicly). I saw this in my past<br /> discussions with LT (where some OSGeo "leaders" chose not to publicly<br /> share their own opinions, but would privately disagree with LT<br /> influence).<br /><br /> So I appreciate that you are speaking with me here Dave. I like your<br /> response, I think you dealt with my question well.<br /><br /> Talk soon,<br /><br /> -jeff<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> On 2015-11-09 9:25 AM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left:
1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Jeff,<br /><br /> I really don’t feel that anything we proposed here suggests OSGeo is<br /> giving up branding at this event. The visibility items for LT are<br /> virtually the same as previous events as we’ve discussed here … a<br /> booth, some sponsor visibility similar to other organizations that<br /> sponsor the event, and a thank you for their organizational support.<br /> All of that is intentionally planned to be below the radar, in a<br /> similar vein to corporate or other organizational participation in<br /> this event so that OSGeo continues to have top prominence with this<br /> being the OSGeo event of the year.<br /><br /> On top of this — you significantly increase the outreach to<br /> communities that may not be actively involved in OSGeo, and in fact<br /> may not know what OSGeo is. All of this enhances the OSGeo brand, it<br /> doesn’t diminish it.<br /><br /> Dave<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote
class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Nov 9, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Jeff McKenna<br /> <jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:<br /><br /> Hi Dave,<br /><br /> I have a problem with your proposed "LT visibility items are<br /> compensation for putting up seed funding, and financial insurance".<br /> So we are to give up branding for our own event, one that we have<br /> driven from 2006 with blood, sweat, and tears (a lot of each of<br /> those), so that another foundation can provide seed funding and<br /> financial insurance? Why do you feel the need to not allow the OSGeo<br /> foundation to provide the seed funding and insurance for our own<br /> event?<br /><br /> To give a better financial picture of OSGeo, in fact the outlook for<br /> the foundation has been better: coming off of a successful<br /> FOSS4G-Seoul event, and as we approach another strong event of<br /> FOSS4G-Bonn. I have already heard
plans in motion from a strong<br /> group in the Asia-Pacific region for FOSS4G 2018. We are running a<br /> steady balance in our financial accounts at a level higher than ever<br /> before in the history of the foundation: roughly 300k USD.<br /><br /> It seems like a hard pill to be forced to swallow, losing our<br /> precious OSGeo branding (that we always have a difficult time<br /> enforcing even at our one yearly event), for something that we don't<br /> even need (external seed funding and financial insurance).<br /><br /> -jeff<br /><br /><br /><br /> On 2015-11-08 9:44 PM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;"> HI Guido,<br /><br /> Thank you for the good question.<br /><br /> First of all I should point out that the $90,000 cost is an at-cost<br /> fee<br /> for provision of these services. Keep in mind they will be doing a<br /> lot<br /> of the open source geospatial
leg work that is often handled by the<br /> LOC<br /> volunteers, such as sponsorship recruitment, marketing activities,<br /> program logistics support, etc...<br /><br /> In addition, they have agreed to financially backstop the event,<br /> ie. put<br /> up any of the seed funds required to move this forward, and cover<br /> shortfalls in the worse case that this should take place.<br /><br /> I think the best way to think of this is:<br /><br /> 1. The 90,000 is to cover the internal labour costs for LT to provide<br /> these services, so that the organization will at least be<br /> cost-neutral<br /> in providing these PCO services<br /> 2. The LT visibility items are compensation for putting up seed<br /> funding,<br /> and financial insurance.<br /><br /><br /> Another way to think about it — it’s just a good way for two open<br /> source<br /> geospatial organizations to give each other a hand.<br /><br /> Thanks,<br /><br /> Dave<br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote
class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Nov 8, 2015, at 7:15 PM, Guido Stein <guido@guidostein.com<br /> <mailto:guido@guidostein.com>> wrote:<br /><br /> Dave,<br /><br /> I have questions based on your LT visibility plan:<br /><br /> ----<br /> What we have proposed for LocationTech visibility is as follows:<br /><br /> 1. Recognition as a Sponsor for Conference Organization.<br /> 2. Booth at the Exhibition Hall<br /> 3. Acknowledgement of LocationTech’s PCO services at plenaries,<br /> similar to how GITA in Denver, and AGI in Nottingham were<br /> recognized.<br /><br /> The above we feel is in line with their offer to financially<br /> backstop<br /> the event.<br /> ----<br /><br /> Sponsorship and booth space are a major source of revenue for the<br /> conference. The value of sponsoring this conference is currently set<br /> between 3,000 and 30,000 thousand euro's.<br /><br /> In your proposal
your cost for your PCO, was stated as 90,000 USD.<br /> One<br /> of the services that your PCO, LocationTech, offers is to give you a<br /> "financial backstop". So, since sponsorship/visibility is valued<br /> between 3,000 to 30,000 euros, is that cost of sponsorship built<br /> into<br /> the cost of your PCO, meaning the complete cost for the PCO is<br /> between<br /> 93,000-120,000 USD with the cost of sponsorship paid in-kind, or<br /> does<br /> LocationTech plan to pay their sponsorship dues, or does<br /> locationtech<br /> get free sponsorship and get paid 90,000 USD?<br /><br /> Thanks for your clarification on this,<br /><br /> Guido<br /><br /><br /> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 10:55 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman@gmail.com<br /> <mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com>> wrote:<br /><br /> Clear to me<br /> ______<br /><br /> Steven<br /><br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 8 Nov 2015, at 15:25, Dave McIlhagga<br /> <dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com<br /> <mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com>> wrote:<br /><br /> Hi Steven and Jeff,<br /><br /> I do realize that the relationship with LocationTech as PCO<br /> is a<br /> bit of a departure from previous events, and as such I want<br /> to be<br /> sure we are very clear on how this will translate in the<br /> areas of<br /> concern that have been raised.<br /><br /><br /> *1. Branding*<br /><br /> The event will be banded as "FOSS4G 2017 Ottawa, Hosted by<br /> OSGeo”, in line with all previous OSGeo annual FOSS4G<br /> events. To<br /> be clear this will not be the same as FOSS4G-NA which is run<br /> differently.<br /><br /> What we have proposed for LocationTech visibility is as<br /> follows:<br /><br /> 1. Recognition as a Sponsor for Conference Organization.<br /> 2. Booth at the Exhibition Hall<br /> 3. Acknowledgement of
LocationTech’s PCO services at plenaries,<br /> similar to how GITA in Denver, and AGI in Nottingham were<br /> recognized.<br /><br /> The above we feel is in line with their offer to financially<br /> backstop the event.<br /><br /><br /> *2. Finances*<br /><br /> We are committing to a significant payment as outlined in our<br /> proposal should the conference run a surplus. Specific amounts<br /> are specified based on sample surplus thresholds met. And OSGeo<br /> does not carry any financial risk if the event fails to make<br /> money.<br /><br /> I believe we’ve outlined each of the fee areas in the proposal,<br /> but if there are any specific questions about line items,<br /> please<br /> let me know so we can clarify.<br /><br /><br /> *3. Coincidental Text between Philadelphia and Ottawa*<br /><br /> The reason for the similar text in our proposals is a result of<br /> both organizations choosing to work with a
PCO who is highly<br /> knowledgeable about open source events, and open source<br /> geospatial events in particular. We relied on them to help<br /> us in<br /> venue selection, sponsorship program, and many other areas they<br /> have intimate knowledge about, particularly with recent<br /> experiences with FOSS4G-NA. Neither LOC was about to re-write<br /> just so they could look different. They simply made sense and<br /> were based on better knowledge than the LOCs themselves had.<br /><br /><br /> Does that clarify things, is there anything in the above that<br /> remains unclear?<br /><br /> Dave<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Nov 7, 2015, at 6:35 PM, Steven Feldman<br /> <shfeldman@gmail.com<br /> <mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com>> wrote:<br /><br /> Dave<br /><br /> You say “for the
sake of clarity and transparency ...” I<br /> may be<br /> a lone voice here but I don’t fee that there is clarity or<br /> transparency about the relationship between the Ottawa and<br /> Philadelphia bids and Location Tech. Several questions and<br /> concerns have been expressed regarding branding, finances,<br /> influence, the coincidences of identical sections of text in<br /> both bids etc. From my personal perspective I do not have<br /> ‘clarity’<br /><br /><br /> ______<br /> Steven<br /><br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;"> On 7 Nov 2015, at 22:30, Dave McIlhagga<br /> <dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com<br /> <mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com>> wrote:<br /><br /> After reading Michael’s summary - I realized that there are<br /> quite different perspectives on taking on the<br /> responsibility of<br /> hosting FOSS4G for
OSGeo, so for the sake of clarity and<br /> transparency felt compelled to provide the perspective of the<br /> Ottawa LOC on taking this on.<br /><br /> When some of our keen and active members of the Ottawa OSGeo<br /> Local Chapter approached me about participating in this<br /> event,<br /> a lot of great memories of hosting the precursor we did in<br /> 2004<br /> came back to me, but so did the memories of the mountains of<br /> work, unexpected twists and turns, and complete<br /> underestimation<br /> we had of the job at hand. Over the years I’ve had<br /> conversations with many of the hosts of this event, who even<br /> with the assistance of an experienced PCO, and with all the<br /> energy and best intentions in the world, have been<br /> overwhelmed<br /> by the amount of work required, particularly due to some of<br /> the<br /> unique needs that come with putting on an open source<br /> geospatial event.<br
/><br /> With this in mind, I joined our LOC, with an eye to advising<br /> and supporting from my experience with this event. When the<br /> group asked if I would be willing to Chair — I said I would,<br /> but the condition of that was that we had to have a very<br /> strong<br /> PCO to work with, as I was well aware of what the alternative<br /> would look like in terms of impacts on our team, and our<br /> ability to pull off a world class professional event.<br /><br /> At this point I approached LocationTech to see if they<br /> would be<br /> interested in acting as our PCO in our bid to OSGeo to host<br /> FOSS4G for the foundation. I had several reasons for this<br /> which<br /> I will explain below - but before this, want to share the<br /> next<br /> step of our process in selecting a PCO. In order to ensure<br /> due<br /> diligence, we invited another prominent PCO from Ottawa to<br /> offer their services so
that we could compare options. The<br /> end<br /> point of this was a three way discussion among the Ottawa<br /> PCO,<br /> LocationTech and the Ottawa LOC. It was an interesting<br /> experiment in collaborative discussion on this - and the<br /> result<br /> was the other PCO we were speaking with suggested it really<br /> made most sense for us to work with LocationTech on our bid.<br /> That provided for me the reassurance that this was the right<br /> way for us to approach this.<br /><br /><br /> For us, the advantages of this approach come down to the<br /> following:<br /><br /> 1. Eclipse has long experience and infrastructure<br /> specifically<br /> designed for hosting international open source events and<br /> all<br /> the uniqueness that implies. No need to re-invent the wheel<br /> for<br /> Technical Workshop sign-ups, incorporating BOFs, Sprints, and<br /> the many other elements of this event.<br /><br />
2. I remember how much time Sponsorship recruitment took —<br /> something typically grossly underestimated. With LocationTech<br /> involved we get a group that already has a strong<br /> institutional<br /> membership base, and key relationships to the organizations<br /> that are likely to be sponsors for this event. That’s both a<br /> tremendous amount of work that doesn’t have to depend on<br /> volunteer time, with a far greater chance of success in<br /> securing sponsorships that financially de-risk this event.<br /><br /> 3. With LocationTech involved, I feel we have a much greater<br /> chance of securing higher attendance due to the direct<br /> marketing access that comes with this to the LocationTech and<br /> Eclipse community.<br /><br /> 4. LocationTech has a unique motivation to make this a great<br /> event — which is advancing the open source geospatial<br /> technology movement, something that is
core to their<br /> raison-d’etre, and as such, I know they would put their heart<br /> and soul into this in a way we could not expect from any<br /> other<br /> PCO.<br /><br /><br /> Finally, I just want to re-iterate in case there is any<br /> confusion here, that we as an LOC have put this bid forward<br /> from the get-go with a goal of putting on a great OSGeo<br /> event.<br /> This is the LOCs bid to host this event, and not Eclipse.<br /> It is<br /> the LOC that will be the driver of what this whole event will<br /> look like, and the LOC will be working with OSGeo to ensure<br /> this is a great world class event reflective of OSGeo’s<br /> needs.<br /> Our choice of a PCO is because it makes the most sense to us<br /> logistically to pull this off.<br /><br /> There were good questions about branding, and I think we’ve<br /> made it clear — this is the OSGeo Global FOSS4G event, that’s<br /> what we
want it to be as the LOC and what we’re committed to<br /> putting on. LocationTech will have presence of course as we<br /> indicated, in a similar manner to their past participation at<br /> FOSS4G.<br /><br /> I’ve been involved in this personally for a long time, as one<br /> of the original founders of OSGeo and our Local Chapter,<br /> former<br /> Board Member and Treasurer, and continuing member of this<br /> conference committee. By being the chair of this event, I’m<br /> putting my reputation on the line here to put on a great show<br /> for the Foundation, it’s projects, and it’s members. I hope<br /> that can be sufficient to put any concerns about our PCO to<br /> rest.<br /><br /><br /> Best of luck to the committee with your deliberations. You<br /> have<br /> some very good proposals and keen LOCs to choose from. No<br /> matter what, I’m sure OSGeo is going to get a great event in<br /> 2017 - we
look forward to your decision.<br /><br /> Thanks,<br /><br /> Dave<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Nov 6, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Michael Terner <mgt@appgeo.com<br /> <mailto:mgt@appgeo.com>> wrote:<br /><br /> Steven:<br /> Thanks for revising spreadsheet based on the input you've<br /> received. Just to address the points that Robert and David<br /> have raised vis a vis our workshop pricing and the PCO and<br /> associated costs.<br /><br /> 1. YES, our workshop costs are $100/day. We believe it is<br /> important to give attendees the option of having the right<br /> number of workshops that fits their schedule (i.e., Monday<br /> /and /Tuesday; Tuesday only). That is why our workshop<br /> pricing<br /> is itemized. That said, it is a good idea to have a bundled<br /> and discounted
workshop price along with the main conference<br /> and we will strongly consider that if we are chosen.<br /><br /> 2. YES, we did not include an original, itemized line item<br /> for<br /> our PCO and our PCO was embedded in the $149K "Production"<br /> line item. Based on a question, we presented the $60K PCO<br /> price separately. Our $60K PCO price is /all inclusive /and<br /> like Philadelphia includes marketing support and other labor<br /> activities. We did our research and this pricing is<br /> comfortably consistent with successful previous global North<br /> American events. And, as shown throughout the proposal<br /> process, our full BLOC is prepared to be energetically<br /> involved in producing the conference.<br /><br /> Boston's PCO approach is different than both Philadelphia's<br /> and Ottawa's. We were approached by Location Tech, heard<br /> their<br /> pitch, and selected a PCO partner that did not
require<br /> branding and who we felt would best reflect the BLOC's<br /> vision<br /> for the conference. We consciously gave up the underwriting<br /> that Location Tech generously offered and instead chose the<br /> formula that has worked for previous FOSS4G global<br /> conferences<br /> with OSGeo and the LOC directly partnering and sharing risks<br /> and rewards. And very importantly, we wanted some of the<br /> rewards (i.e., the 20%, or $20k of profits, whichever is<br /> smaller) to be reinvested in further building the Boston<br /> community through a new OSGeo Chapter.<br /><br /> 3. While the spreadsheet is incredibly helpful and I presume<br /> will be very valuable to the selection committee there is<br /> agreement across all three teams that it does not reflect a<br /> pure apples-to-apples comparison. Some significant things<br /> differ including:<br /><br /> * The anticipated attendance in each
city<br /> * The PCO approach and underwriting<br /></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>