[Board] wondering about short interest in proposals this year
Michael P. Gerlek
mpg at lizardtech.com
Mon Jan 28 14:02:55 PST 2008
I'd submit also that, esp. at the time the CFP was going around, 2009
sure seemed like too far away to be thinking about.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Tyler
> Mitchell (OSGeo)
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 2:01 PM
> To: jo at frot.org
> Cc: conference_dev-request at lists.osgeo.org; board at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [Board] wondering about short interest in
> proposals this year
> I think part of what you saw this year was also the global community
> recognising that Sydney could do a good job, so why compete, when
> others can wait until the following year?
> Four bids last year was great to see, but it's not that much fun to
> have your bid rejected. I suggest that next year, we have a brief
> "letter of interest" phase prior to the full blown RFP. Proposers
> can then assess to what level they are willing to risk having their
> RFP tossed out. It also helps this committee know what's
> coming down
> the pipe beforehand and it can help fuel competition between groups
> who know they are "competing".
> I'm sure there are other factors too and will leave it to others to
> address those,
> On 28-Jan-08, at 1:35 PM, jo at frot.org wrote:
> > dear conference list,
> > I had a quick skim through the list archive to find out how the
> > conference venue was selected for 2009. I was surprised to see
> > only one proposal to host the main OSGeo conference in 2009.
> > To be honest that concerns me a bit, as there were four
> proposals for
> > the 2008 one. Is the bar raised too high by Victoria's amazing
> > performance? Are local user groups struggling to get it together?
> > Was there much followup/nudging of groups who've submitted proposals
> > in the past which have not made it over the bar?
> > I would appreciate it if anyone here could fill me in with their
> > insight on this. I'm not criticising the Sydney proposal, from what
> > little i saw it looks solid and there is some real dynamism
> behind it.
> > However the board is being asked to "Approve Sydney's
> selection" this
> > week, this seems like rubberstamping to me but is a big committment.
> > I feel i need to know more about the organising and decision process
> > before offering a +1 and i can't find anything on the wiki.
> > cheers,
> > jo
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Board