<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>This is a delicate balance question.</p>
<p>We really appreciate sponsors as they enable us to attract
community by keeping costs to attendees down, pay for travel grant
programs, and cover the community day. We should say that
ourselves. I think we should follow that with a 60 second pitch
session for big roller sponsors to pitch their company, and then
refer back to their booth for more info. (That should be at the
start of the conference within a plenary).</p>
<p>We should then state that our strong preference for talks (as per
our selection criteria) is no sales pitches. Yes, you can say
where you work, yes you can apply a very subtle reference back to
you company, but that should be it. (Paul Ramsey is very good at
getting this balance right.)</p>
<p>+1, For all other talks, we should select based on existing merit
criteria (and not on how much you pay).<br>
</p>
<p>Cameron<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/3/19 1:37 pm, adam steer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFORoygzYCzBhOea6kBZuCNo1qdfFsgnd1DO0vDsexG1Tmuuog@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hi all
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In our latest FOSS4G SotM 2019 committee meeting there
was a short discussion about how to manage talks submitted
by sponsors (minutes will come soon, the 2019 conference
wiki page at <a href="http://osgeo.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">osgeo.org</a> is just being
started)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In 2018, we decided that sponsor-submitted talks should
go through the normal process - that is, there is no
guaranteed talk slot for sponsors; and any talks submitted
by sponsors need to go through the normal community review +
committee filter.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On reflection, we failed to communicate this adequately
to some sponsors, and this year will aim to do so in the
prospectus. However, in an open-ended feedback survey, none
of the sponsors who responded indicated that they would
prefer ‘guaranteed content’.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Before we go ahead and set words in stone for 2019:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Do you think that we should stick to the 2018 model -
meaning that sponsor-submitted talks should go through the
normal review process; and there are no guaranteed talk
slots for sponsors?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>+1 says ‘yes’; and that’s my personal vote/preference as
programme coordinator.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please vote, ask questions if you need more clarity,
discuss - our next conference committee meeting is scheduled
for early April; and we’d like to have a prospectus nearing
‘ready’ shortly after that.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks, and regards</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Adam</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:FOSS4G-Oceania@lists.osgeo.org">FOSS4G-Oceania@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254</pre>
</body>
</html>