[Local-chapters] [OSGeo-Conf] Using the FOSS4G brand

Thu Nov 21 03:44:28 PST 2013

Dear all, 

First of all the news from the Lowlands: Last week we had our annual
OSgeo.nl day 2013 last week (120 participants).

As member of the organizing committee my main concern regarding coordination
was a local one: an overcrowded geospatial agenda that week: for instance a
linked open data event on exactly the same day (just 5 miles away from our
venue in Delft!) but geospatial-related conferences, with overlapping target
audiences, were held every single day last week. This caused at least one
geo-related event (the day after our conference) to be cancelled due to a
lack of participants.

Just curious: can anybody explain what exactly the overlap between two (or
more) open geospatial events was that Arnulf refers to?

Greetings, 

Gert-Jan 

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: local-chapters-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:local-chapters-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] Namens Seven (aka Arnulf)
Verzonden: woensdag 20 november 2013 18:48
Aan: Venkatesh Raghavan; Conference Dev; board at lists.osgeo.org;
local-chapters
Onderwerp: Re: [Local-chapters] [OSGeo-Conf] Using the FOSS4G brand

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Venka,
apparently we are mixing things up here. For clarification I would like to
separate the issues touched in related posts. The question is not whether or
not to deny or allow anybody to use the FOSS4G brand. Instead my proposal is
that OSGeo should help to coordinate events better.

Recent events have demonstrated that an uncoordinated proliferation of
conference announcements without proper coordination up front leads to
confusion and agitation. This is damaging to the community as a whole and
easily avoidable by simply prepending an announcement of the intention to
hold an event. Then allow the broadest possible community to apprehend what
is going on and let them voice their opinion. This is so obvious that so far
we have not seen the need to require this but the recent experiences show
that it would be helpful to write this down and make it a requirement.
* If not OSGeo where else can we do this?
* If not through OSGeo how else can we reach that many communities?
* If we do not trust OSGeo, then who can we trust with this responsibility?

All other considerations regarding revenue coming out of FOSS4G and how to
allocate them to Local Chapters, OSGeo global or whoever else may be
entitled are different topics. I would like to first find general consensus
that there is a need to better coordinate events.

If there is considerable resistance to working in a more coordinated way I
will happily drop the topic and do something more useful.

Best regards,
Arnulf

On 20.11.2013 17:32, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> I think this discussion has been done before in discuss [1] and board 
> lists.
> History of FOSS4G is documented at [2] and [3]
> 
> FOSS4G refers a philosophy/concept/technology and cannot be branded. 
> Since it existed before the formation of OSGeo foundation, OSGeo 
> foundation cannot/need not claim ownership to FOSS4G.
> 
> Hoping see more FOSS4G in the bazaar.
> 
> Best
> 
> Venka
> 
> [1]http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2011-November/009759.html
> [2]http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G
> [3]http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2011-November/009762.html
> 
> 
> On 2013/11/20 18:47, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
> Folks,
> there has been some confusion around the brand FOSS4G, how to organize 
> local conferences in general, how to link back to OSGeo and so on.
> 
> As a result of these ongoings I suggest that OSGeo take more ownership 
> of the brand FOSS4G. The main reason is to avoid confusion, improve 
> transparency and make sure that the name FOSS4G continues to stand for 
> quality events.
> 
> Therefore I suggest that anybody who wants to use the name FOSS4G has 
> to first ask/announce this on this mailing list *before* making it a 
> public event, sign any contracts, etc.
> 
> What is "ask/announce"? Not sure, we may need to better define. From a 
> do-ocratic [1] point of view anybody should be allowed to go ahead. At 
> the same time we should strive to avoid conflicts with other events 
> close by, go easy on volunteer resources, etc. Maybe we can implement 
> a very simple rule: If nobody complains / raises issues within two 
> weeks of announcing on the Conference-dev list the organizer can go ahead.
> 
> Later we may also want to make sure (make it a rule) that a trusted 
> OSGeo person is part of the LOC.
> 
> What is a "trusted OSGeo person"? Anybody with an official role, be it 
> board, committee, or chair. If necessary we have to clarify. Again, 
> I'd like to keep it simple...
> 
> Once we have talked about this here and if we agree I would like to 
> make this a motion to be approved by the Board at one of their next
meetings.
> 
> A general question is whether the conference committee is prepared to 
> take on this additional job at all. It appears to be the best place 
> but if you think this belongs elsewhere please advise.
> 
> Best regards,
> Arnulf
> 
> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Do-ocracy
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

- --
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlKM9csACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b0dKACbB7iWuWOD24TdKHTN6q+YJUXo
BlMAnAmG/VVEPNmyqp/uHsKXR+s9P2NX
=Rkwn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Local-chapters mailing list
Local-chapters at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/local-chapters