<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Maxi<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I copied the board list as a courtesy, the RfP does not need board approval. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Many of the board members are also on the conference list and as are the prospective board members, they are all free to comment as long as they do so by tomorrow evening. I have to get this finalised and issued if we are going to complete the process in 2016.<br class=""><div class="">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">______<br class="">Steven<br class=""><br class=""></span>
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 20 Sep 2016, at 21:53, Massimiliano Cannata <<a href="mailto:massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch" class="">massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><p dir="ltr" class="">Steven<br class="">
If you are looking for the board feedback, as is a recipient of your mail, i guess you should wait for the end of the election period and the new board having a meeting to take a position.<br class="">
Maxi</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Il 20/Set/2016 19:30, "Steven Feldman" <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" class="">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>> ha scritto:<br type="attribution" class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">Hi<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I haven’t received many comments on the draft RfP. I hope that indicates broad agreement rather than that you haven’t had time to read it (it is a good bit shorter than previous years)<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I have received comments from Daniel and Till which I summarise below</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><ol class=""><li class="">Change dates to ISO format yyyy-mm-dd (DM, done)</li></ol><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The following are from Till:</div><ol class=""><li class="">Extend period for submitting full proposals by 2-3 weeks (I am minded to extend by 2 weeks which pushes announcement back to 2016-12-19)</li><li class="">Should we require the gala event to be included in the conference ticket price as has been the practice in recent years or do we wish to make it optional to reduce delegate fees? Or do we leave to the LOC as currently in the RfP? (my view leave to LOC to decide)</li><li class="">Should the student awards be run by the Academic Track team or the Geo4All team? (my view is this should be Geo4All)</li><li class="">Include a requirement to appoint an OSGeo financial representative to the LOC if OSGeo is providing seed funding and a guarantee (I agree with this recommendation)</li><li class="">Should we have a
template for the full proposal? It would save LOC’s from spending too much money
on drafting a fancy proposal. And it would imporove comparability
of the bids. Alternatively we
could make the key elements list of the RfP a mandatory structure? (I think this is a great idea but I am not sure that we have time to do a proper job this year)</li><li class="">Budget template - should we make it mandatory to use our template? (I’m not sure, people have their own way of budgeting, once they add in lines and columns comparability becomes difficult)</li><li class=""><font face="HelveticaNeue" class="">
<span lang="EN-AU" class="">Add a requirement for a risk assessment. What costs arise, how many months before the event, if you have to cancel. What if your estimated income on
sponsorship is unrealistic? (Excellent suggestion)</span></font></li><li class=""><font face="HelveticaNeue" class=""><span lang="EN-AU" class="">Require timing to be September rather than August which is easier for the European community (not sure I agree, no time will be perfect for everyone)</span></font></li><li class=""><font face="HelveticaNeue" class=""><span lang="EN-AU" class="">The full delegate fee target of $650 should be for conference only (early bird?) with extra charge for workshops (I agree re NA and EU but I hope that a RoW event could show us how to run for less)</span></font></li><li class=""><font face="HelveticaNeue" class=""><span lang="EN-AU" class="">If an event is proposing to offer a lower cost option </span></font><span lang="EN-AU" class=""><font face="HelveticaNeue" class="">we should point out that we
expect a professional well organised conference (I agree but wonder if that needs to be said or should be in the evaluation criteria)</font></span></li></ol><div class=""><font face="HelveticaNeue" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="HelveticaNeue" class="">My responses are included in the brackets following each point. Unless others disagree strongly I will implement these changes on Thursday. I have also corrected a few typos and minor phrasings pointed out by Till.</font></div><div class=""><font face="HelveticaNeue" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="HelveticaNeue" class="">If anyone has more comments or suggestions that they wish to make please get them to me by 18.00 GMT on 21st September. Please state whether your proposed change is a publication blocker if not incorporated, I will do my best to incorporate changes.</font></div><div class=""><font face="HelveticaNeue" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="HelveticaNeue" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class="">
<span style="border-collapse:separate;line-height:normal;border-spacing:0px" class="">______<br class="">Steven<br class=""><br class=""></span>
</div>
<br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 15 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Steven Feldman <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">All<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">After several early drafts and wise advice from Cameron and Eli, here is the final draft of the RfP document for FOSS4G 2018.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">A little background to the changes:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1) The old RfP ran out at 58 pages with some long appendices. I have reduced the document to 12 pages by pushing the appendix of past reports to a page on the wiki and by cross referencing as much stuff as possible to the wiki (which also ensures that it is more likely to remain current)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2) The document is designed to be as generic as possible. It should need little change for 2019 etc unless we change major policy or processes.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">3) The document is structured with all key information and dates in 2 tables at the beginning which are cross referenced throughout the doc</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">4) References to delegate prices and concessions have been left sufficiently open to allow/encourage bidders to suggest innovative models</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">5) There is specific reference to the availability of seed finance and the expectations of return to OSGeo if we provide funding.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">6) In the past we had a complex voting system which required committee members to rank all proposals. We did not actually use that voting system and each member voted for one proposal. I have proposed a 1st and 2nd choice system (2nd choices are only used if there is a tie at the 1st vote stage)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Please comment on the RfP by 18.00 GMT on Wednesday 21st, I need to integrate any changes before publishing the RfP on 23rd.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Board members if you have any comments could you please post into this thread on Conference list rather than the board list.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Potential FOSS4G bidders should be aware that this draft is subject to community comment and possible revision</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">May the FOSS be with you<br class=""><div class="">
<span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;border-spacing:0px" class="">______<br class="">Steven<br class=""><br class=""></span>
</div>
</div></div><span class=""><FOSS4G2018-request-for-<wbr class="">proposal-Final.pdf></span><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class=""></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div><br class="">______________________________<wbr class="">_________________<br class="">
Conference_dev mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr class="">mailman/listinfo/conference_<wbr class="">dev</a><br class=""></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>