<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Re: local vs global PCO: Something in between might be better.
Something floated and seriously considered a few years back was to
have a paid position at OSGeo whose primary responsibility is to
support FOSS4G LOC's. OSGeo would need to decide whether it can
afford such a position.</p>
<p>Re: Conference committee vs Board selecting conferences. There
will likely always be many board members with interest and
experience in conferences. If a board member wishes to contribute
to discussion about conferences, it should be done on the
conference email list. If the board member wishes to put in the
extra effort required to research conference proposals and help
with conference selection, they should join the conference
committee. Of course, the board should have final say and veto
over a conference committee decisions, and can also provide OSGeo
goals which flow down to the conference committee.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/06/2016 9:46 pm,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:till.adams@fossgis.de">till.adams@fossgis.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:4b3ed44a6668bd6dfb7d35983eba3c87@fossgis.de"
type="cite">Hi,
<br>
<br>
just two cents from LOC 2016:
<br>
<br>
to 1.: I also do not like the idea of a fixed PCO. Our (2016) PCO
is locally rooted, they know the venue, the city, the things you
can do on a local base. It would be dangerous not to have the
possibility to catch hold of this knowledge. Also, in my eyes,
having always the same PCO means that FOSS4G conferences get equal
and equal. One of the things I like, is that LOC's have the
freedom to do something new, to add in new elements into a
conference. That keeps FOSS4G living and kind of surprising. The
same PCO bears the danger to do "business as usual" year to year.
<br>
<br>
Pricing:
<br>
If the board decides that we want cheaper/free tickets for
students/people from 3rd world countries, the board must take over
full financial risk for every event (as it should be in general in
my eyes). Offering such reduced fees leads to a very very
difficult situation of financial planning for LOC's.
<br>
<br>
Regards, Till
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 2016-05-31 19:43, schrieb Steven Feldman:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Summing up my views on various topics on
this mail thread
<br>
<br>
I am in the camp that says that the current process sort of
works,
<br>
there is always room for improvement but I would be against
Dave’s
<br>
approach of locking us into a fixed PCO and pushing the
selection to
<br>
the Board.
<br>
<br>
1) Is there a PCO with expertise to operate across the whole
globe? I
<br>
doubt that any of the smaller cost effective providers could
offer
<br>
that service
<br>
2) The key to a successful event is an energetic and imaginative
LOC,
<br>
the current process has thrown up a heck of a lot of good teams
who
<br>
have worked immensely hard. Would a change to a board determined
<br>
choice of city have the same effect?
<br>
3) there is nothing to stop the Board suggesting to a city/LOC
that
<br>
they should submit a proposal. the initial letter is very simple
and
<br>
quick
<br>
<br>
BTW we still have an outstanding topic to get a board decision
on how
<br>
we wish to interface with Location Tech on the global event. Can
they
<br>
be a PCO, underwriter and joint promoter of the event? This
topic
<br>
generated a lot of debate (some of which was regrettable in
tone) when
<br>
we were choosing for 2017. It would be good to be clear on this
before
<br>
starting the 2018 process.
<br>
<br>
There has been some discussion about the cost of FOSS4G, whether
it
<br>
is too expensive, how it could be reduced etc. I have helped to
<br>
organise a lot of events and I do not know how you can run an
event
<br>
without incurring expenses (venues, catering, AV, wifi,
registration
<br>
etc) of course there are cheaper ways of doing things but they
are
<br>
rarely done for nothing. So the delegate price is a function of
<br>
choices on venue etc, the level of sponsorship that we can
attract (in
<br>
recent years between $10 and $20 per delegate approx) and the
level of
<br>
surplus returned to OSGeo (in recent years between $10 and $15
per
<br>
delegate approx) and the number of free entries that we offer to
<br>
speakers, workshops, students and those from less advantaged
<br>
communities. It would be helpful if the Board could set some
policy on
<br>
this topic before we go out for the 2018 call.
<br>
<br>
I agree with that we should have a more transparent way of
evaluating
<br>
bids as CC chair perhaps I should put together a straw man of
<br>
selection criteria (a bit like tender making criteria)? Possible
<br>
criteria could include - ticket cost, travel cost, accommodation
cost,
<br>
strength of LOC, any requirements for an OSGeo financial
guarantee,
<br>
risk, innovation, outreach programme, grant programme, etc.
<br>
<br>
There is a lot of work involved in assessing bids, I am in
favour of
<br>
leaving the selection to the CC with the Board having the final
<br>
approval. This reduces workload on the board (except those
members who
<br>
are also CC members).
<br>
<br>
Re membership of CC. I remain of the opinion that it should
comprise
<br>
up to 12 past chairs or vice chairs of global and regional
events with
<br>
selection by the Board if there are more candidates than places
(norm
<br>
should be to retire from CC after a max of 4 or 5 years, enough
is
<br>
enough after all!). You don’t need to be a member of the CC to
express
<br>
opinions on the CC list or to contribute time in working on
policies
<br>
etc on the wiki, but past experience should be a criteria for
being
<br>
one of those voting.
<br>
<br>
I have suggested in the past that the CC should have the ability
to
<br>
influence the timing of regional events that might conflict with
the
<br>
global event. One way would be requiring anyone who wanted to
use the
<br>
FOSS4G brand for an event to apply to CC with their proposed
dates.
<br>
Need not be a cumbersome process but would establish a way to
avoid
<br>
conflicts.
<br>
<br>
It would be great to have a f2f between board and CC members
when we
<br>
are all in Bonn, no time will be perfect for everyone so how
about
<br>
16.00-17.00 on Wednesday 25th August (finishing well before the
AGM)?
<br>
Till has offered to allocate a room to us. Shall I set up a
doodle
<br>
with a couple of time slots for people to choose or just go for
this
<br>
one?
<br>
<br>
______
<br>
Steven
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 31 May 2016, at 16:01, Helena
Mitasova <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:hmitaso@ncsu.edu"><hmitaso@ncsu.edu></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
Dave,
<br>
<br>
I agree with Maxi. I have been involved with conference
committee for many years and served on steering committees for
academic track
<br>
on quite a few of them and I actually like the current system
where we have FOSS4G NA organized by LocationTech and the
other
<br>
conferences organized in quite diverse ways by LOC. I think
LocationTech has done a great job for the conference in
Raleigh,
<br>
I liked the way how it was organized.
<br>
But at the same time, as Venka mentioned some time ago,
conferences organized by LOC help build the community and
broaden
<br>
the cultural experience - each LOC brings something new to the
conference and I think that is a good thing,
<br>
as the diversity of approaches makes the conference series
more robust.
<br>
<br>
I think that Maxi’s suggestion for more transparent evaluation
would help to clear some misunderstanding on the votes
<br>
both at the conference committee level and the board level.
<br>
<br>
Regarding Cameron’s note about the need for experience with
conferences when making the decisions, when you look at the
board members,
<br>
you can see extensive experience with organizing FOSS4G
conferences at all levels for many years, including running
the conferences
<br>
and working with LOCs.
<br>
<br>
On the more practical side, for 2018 RFP we will need to
address the timing of FOSS4G NA and FOSS4G Global becuase
<br>
they are geting too close with May too late and August too
early (and a vacation time!).
<br>
<br>
Helena
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On May 31, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Dave
McIlhagga <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com"><dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
Hi Cameron and Maxi,
<br>
<br>
Thanks for the quick feedback on this.
<br>
<br>
The decision (ie who makes it) I think here is less of the
issue than the actual process itself.
<br>
<br>
Does anyone else feel that we could do a better job here if
we scrapped this competitive LOC process and instead worked
to compare potential cities/countries and make a decision
this way?
<br>
<br>
FOSS4G-NA has worked this way for several years, and it
seems like a much more collaborative approach to making a
decision, instead of the bureaucratic RFP-like process we’ve
put in place that really locks us in to a pre-set path.
<br>
<br>
Dave
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On May 31, 2016, at 1:44 AM,
Massimiliano Cannata <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch"><massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch></a>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
Dear all
<br>
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
<br>
<br>
I see the current process quite fine with conf com
evaluating the proposal and the board confirm or
eventually override the rank given.
<br>
<br>
The only thing i can suggest is to have a transparent
process of evaluation in the sense of having well defined
evaluation criteria justified by voting members.
<br>
E.g.: Not only my vote for A but for A-prices: 7 out of 10
with short motivation.
<br>
<br>
In this way results are transparent and easier to be
understood.
<br>
<br>
Cameron, i think that saying that if you didn't run a big
conference you are not eligible for voting is deeply
wrong.
<br>
It is like excluding users from PSC because are not
developers. Diversity of visions and ideas and point of
view brings often innovation and improve the processes.
<br>
<br>
Maxi
<br>
Il 30/Mag/2016 23:52, "Cameron Shorter"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com"><cameron.shorter@gmail.com></a> ha scritto:
<br>
Dave,
<br>
<br>
I like where you are going with this email thread.
<br>
<br>
I'll expand to say that making an informed decision about
FOSS4G city selection involves:
<br>
<br>
1. A significant time studying proposals
<br>
<br>
2. Significant experience understanding the complexities
running a conference (as experienced by prior foss4g
committees)
<br>
<br>
Unless board members have been involved in running a
conference they would likely need to defer to expertise of
others in making a FOSS4G decision.
<br>
Volunteer effort is thin in both the conference committee
and the board committee (to the level required to
understand a FOSS4G proposal). I agree with Dave about
outsourcing this work.
<br>
As it stands, I think the conference committee is better
qualified to make a better decision on FOSS4G selection.
But board input should be welcomed.
<br>
<br>
Warm regards, Cameron
<br>
<br>
On 31/05/2016 1:11 am, Dirk Frigne wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dave,
<br>
<br>
Thank you for your mail.
<br>
It is very informative, and I will put a topic on the
next board meeting
<br>
on June, 9. I think the points we should discuss at the
board level are:
<br>
<br>
1. What does the board expect from the conference
committee, so it can
<br>
make a right decision.
<br>
2. What is the vision of the board concerning the most
important event
<br>
of OSGeo.
<br>
<br>
It is clear FOSS4G (main and side events) become more
and more important
<br>
to outreach to new potential members, and to connect and
'energise' the
<br>
current members. Almost every week there is a FOSS4G
event somewhere on
<br>
this planet. It should be great to have an overview list
of all the
<br>
FOSS4G events taken place in the last 10 years. I've
seen a slide by
<br>
Till about the global FOSS4G events with the number of
attendees, but an
<br>
overview of all the events would give a good insight in
the importance
<br>
of the movement.
<br>
<br>
I will be in Bonn and open for a face2face meeting with
other members of
<br>
the committee to discuss these topics.
<br>
<br>
Dirk.
<br>
<br>
On 30-05-16 16:07, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Steven,
<br>
<br>
First of all - I think this committee has done a lot
of really good and
<br>
very important work over the years, so for everyone
here please don’t
<br>
take any of this as a criticism of the work that’s
been done in the
<br>
past. I think we’ve done the best we can with what
we’ve had to work
<br>
with and the mandate of the committee.
<br>
<br>
Note: I’ve cc’d the board here as some of this needs
to be discussed at
<br>
the board level not just within this committee.
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have a few areas of concern that I think are worth a
discussion here:
<br>
<br>
<br>
1. *Who Decides?*
<br>
<br>
I believe we need to separate out the “Doing” from
“Decisions” —
<br>
Committee’s are put in place to handle the
_/workload/_ that would be
<br>
too onerous for the board, and to make decisions that
individually have
<br>
_/relatively low impact on the organization as a
whole/_. The Board is
<br>
responsible for making the _/decisions that will have
significant impact
<br>
on the organization/_.
<br>
<br>
With that in mind — my suggestion here is that
regardless of the process
<br>
we go through to decide on locations for future
events, organizing
<br>
committees, timing etc.., (more on this below) the
board should be
<br>
making the ultimate decision on the annual event, if
for no other reason
<br>
than it’s financial impact on the organization. Any
event could have +/-
<br>
$100,000 impact on the organization, and this today is
the primary
<br>
source of funding for OSGeo. By definition, that makes
this decision the
<br>
most important decision OSGeo makes every year.
<br>
<br>
Having said that — as we all know here, there is a ton
of leg work that
<br>
precedes making this decision — and that’s where the
work of this
<br>
committee should be focused. If this group can be in
the business of
<br>
_running and managing_ the process of putting on the
conference each
<br>
year, and _advising_ the board on options, pros/cons,
etc.. ie. helping
<br>
the board to make an informed decision, then we’re
doing our job as a
<br>
committee. Then the board can make this key decision
based on the
<br>
direction the board is taking the organization. Is
fundraising
<br>
important? Is hosting the event in places OSGeo is
strong important? Or
<br>
maybe in places it’s weak and wants to grow? Depending
on budget plans
<br>
and many other factors — the answers to these
questions can be quite
<br>
different.
<br>
<br>
<br>
2. *Selection Process*
<br>
<br>
I feel that the competitive process we’ve established
that was arguably
<br>
well suited for the early days of OSGeo (it was
definitely a step
<br>
forward from yours truly choosing - which was the
process pre-OSGeo) —
<br>
has run it’s course. With the amount of experience we
have under our
<br>
collective belts, and the size of the events we’re
dealing with, why do
<br>
we every year need to more or less start from scratch,
and waste
<br>
valuable community volunteer time in competition
rather than doing
<br>
something collaboratively?
<br>
<br>
A very simple example of where the current process
fails to meet OSGeo’s
<br>
needs is the proposed dates from the most recent
selection process.
<br>
Every proposal suggested an August date for the event
… why? Because it
<br>
was the cheapest period to rent venues, and could as a
result drive the
<br>
most profit for OSGeo, increasing every LOCs chance of
being selected.
<br>
That’s possibly the right way to do things … but it
also means
<br>
overlapping with many peoples vacation periods,
meaning many attendees
<br>
that would typically come, won’t. Was that a good
thing? The competitive
<br>
process meant right or wrong, we were more or less
“stuck” with an
<br>
August date.
<br>
<br>
<br>
What if instead we did something along the following
(this is just to
<br>
get the brain juices flowing, not definitive):
<br>
<br>
1. Find a PCO we can work with year-after-year … this
would make life
<br>
simpler for the committee, and cheaper for OSGeo as
there’s no
<br>
year-after-year re-learning. It also means we can much
more effectively
<br>
learn from our mistakes and have consistent
relationships to work with
<br>
to put on a better show every year.
<br>
<br>
2. We come up with a predictable date/schedule so that
attendees and
<br>
critically sponsors can plan around it
year-after-year.
<br>
<br>
3. Committee looks into optional cities/countries to
host through a lens
<br>
of a combination of availability, cost, transport
access, and access to
<br>
locals who could help form a LOC. If this sounds like
a lot of work …
<br>
well that’s why you have a PCO you work with year
after year, who can do
<br>
the leg work on this for you efficiently and far
better than any of us
<br>
can. This also gives you *negotiating* position with
the various
<br>
venues/hotels/cities. With a conference the size of
FOSS4g, most cities
<br>
have one venue that can support it … not much
bargaining room when
<br>
you’re the LOC. But when you’re OSGeo that go to any
city .. you can
<br>
negotiate.
<br>
<br>
4. All of this combined allows us to consult the board
on options we’re
<br>
finding, fine tune based on the board’s needs — and
ultimately work in
<br>
collaboration with the board to come up with a
selected city, that has a
<br>
high chance of success given we’re putting our
collective knowledge and
<br>
the PCOs together without having to pick “one proposal
vs. another”.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I’m not sure if this is all making sense — sometimes
email isn’t the
<br>
best communicator, but I guess my point is, I think we
can do a lot
<br>
better than the current process, and arguably with far
less cumulative
<br>
volunteer time when you combine the efforts of the
committee and X
<br>
bidding LOCs.
<br>
<br>
Worth a discussion at least I’d suggest?
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
<br>
Dave
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dave McIlhagga
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com">dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com"><mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com></a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
/Maps at your fingertips/
<br>
/
<br>
/
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.mapsherpa.com">www.mapsherpa.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.mapsherpa.com"><http://www.mapsherpa.com></a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On May 27, 2016, at 1:25 AM,
Steven Feldman <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com></a>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">wrote:
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dave
<br>
<br>
Surely the board should delegate important tasks to
its committees not
<br>
take on more work?
<br>
<br>
It sounds like you think something has gone wrong
with the selection
<br>
process, can you explain?
<br>
<br>
Steven
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 26 May 2016, at 19:28,
Dave McIlhagga <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com">dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com"><mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com></a>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">wrote:
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Steven,
<br>
<br>
I couldn’t agree more — this committee has
probably the single
<br>
biggest impact of any OSGeo activities on the
Foundation,
<br>
particularly from a financial perspective.
<br>
<br>
If we’re going to look at this — I think we should
look at the whole
<br>
picture of how we do things here. It has long been
a concern of mine
<br>
that the most important decision that OSGeo makes
every year is
<br>
effectively delegated away by the board who is the
elected group in
<br>
fact charged with representing the interests of
the membership.
<br>
<br>
The number 1 change I would recommend is that this
committee provide
<br>
all of the logistical services to review
conference options, help
<br>
local organizing committees, and all of the other
leg work a
<br>
committee exists to handle. But the over-riding
guidance of what the
<br>
international FOSS4G annual conference should be
all about, how OSGeo
<br>
decides where/how conference is hosted and run
each year, should
<br>
really be in the domain of the Board.
<br>
<br>
This group can help that process out extensively
given the breadth of
<br>
experience of the members. If it makes sense to
continue the RFP
<br>
process as we have in the past (which I’m not
convinced of) - then
<br>
this committee can manage that whole process, but
I don’t believe we
<br>
should be casting the votes. It’s too important a
decision for the
<br>
Foundation. Providing experience, perspective, and
commentary on
<br>
proposals to the board is reasonable — but I feel
it’s time that the
<br>
board take back this decision making authority.
<br>
<br>
Technically, the board does approve the decision
of the committee —
<br>
but this has never been overturned, and in my
opinion, the year we
<br>
failed in China was a direct outcome of this
process - I don’t think
<br>
we’ve really learned our lesson from that yet.
<br>
<br>
Dave
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On May 26, 2016, at 12:40
PM, Steven Feldman <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com></a>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">wrote:
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Andrea
<br>
<br>
Definitely not my intention to indicate support
no process.
<br>
<br>
Conference Committee is imho second most
important committee of
<br>
OSGeo, my view is it should have process for
selection, clear bounds
<br>
of authority and expectations on members.
<br>
<br>
Would be good to hear views from a broad cross
section of current
<br>
and past members
<br>
<br>
Steven
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 25 May 2016, at
22:01, Andrea Ross <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:andrea.ross@eclipse.org">andrea.ross@eclipse.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:andrea.ross@eclipse.org"><mailto:andrea.ross@eclipse.org></a>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">wrote:
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Steven, All
<br>
<br>
Are you stating no process or criteria because
you believe that's
<br>
best, or to draw attention to it being a very
bad idea? I can't
<br>
tell through email. :-)
<br>
<br>
Andrea
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 25/05/16 13:08,
Steven Feldman wrote:
<br>
I thought that had been agreed by nearly
everyone who commented
<br>
although there may have been one or two
objections including mine.
<br>
<br>
It seems that if you want to join conference
committee there is no
<br>
process or criteria, you say you want to
join and then you can.
<br>
Quite what happens when you go silent I
don't know? Membership
<br>
allows vote for location of FOSS4G which
raises question about
<br>
potential "packing" of vote but so far we've
not had a problem so
<br>
maybe not an issue.
<br>
<br>
If Maxi wants to be a member, I guess he is
one. @Maxi, feel free
<br>
to add yourself to the current members list
<br>
<br>
Steven
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">On 24 May 2016, at
15:19, Venkatesh Raghavan
<br>
<
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com">venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com"><mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com></a>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">wrote:
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
On 2016/05/24 20:13, Cameron Shorter
wrote:
<br>
Conference Committee,
<br>
I'd like to propose that we invite
Andrea Ross to join the OSGeo
<br>
Conference Committee.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Firstly, we need to decide on the request
from Maxi to join
<br>
the conference committee which was
seconded by me.
<br>
<br>
Venka
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">+1 from me,
Cameron Shorter.
<br>
<br>
My reasoning is that Andrea has a lot of
experience running
<br>
conferences,
<br>
especially through his involvement with
LocationTech, and there are
<br>
synergies that could be gained by
aligning OSGeo and LocationTech
<br>
effectively.
<br>
<br>
I note that there have been concerns
aired previously about
<br>
LocationTech
<br>
competing to take over OSGeo's flagship
FOSS4G event. I'm of the
<br>
opinion
<br>
that we should be mindful of this, but
we should discuss the options
<br>
openly and I believe we can find a
solution favourable for all. An
<br>
effective way to support this
conversation is to invite Andrea
<br>
to be one
<br>
vote among our conference committee.
<br>
<br>
Warm regards, Cameron
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 24/05/2016
6:31 am, Andrea Ross wrote:
<br>
Dear Steven, & Everyone
<br>
<br>
I've not been invited to the
conference committee, but I will be in
<br>
Bonn, and I'm always glad to
chat/meet.
<br>
<br>
Kind regards,
<br>
<br>
Andrea
<br>
<br>
On May 22, 2016 3:04:03 AM EDT, Steven
Feldman
<br>
<
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com"><mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com></a>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
</blockquote>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
Who is going to be in Bonn for FOSS4G?
<br>
<br>
It's an opportunity for the Conference
Committee and interested
<br>
people to meet face to face, we could
discuss some of the topics on
<br>
the 'outstanding
<br>
list'
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities</a>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities"><http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities></a>
<br>
<br>
and we could start preparing the call
for 2018
<br>
<br>
Anyone interested?
<br>
<br>
Steven
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org"><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Board mailing list
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
--
<br>
Cameron Shorter,
<br>
Software and Data Solutions Manager
<br>
LISAsoft
<br>
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
<br>
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
<br>
<br>
P +61 2 9009 5000, W
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F +61 2 9009 5099
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Board mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Helena Mitasova
<br>
Professor at the Department of Marine,
<br>
Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
<br>
and Center for Geospatial Analytics
<br>
North Carolina State University
<br>
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:hmitaso@ncsu.edu">hmitaso@ncsu.edu</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html">http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html</a>
<br>
<br>
"All electronic mail messages in connection with State
business which are sent to or received by this account are
subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.”
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Conference_dev mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F +61 2 9009 5099</pre>
</body>
</html>