[Board] wondering about short interest in proposals this year

Paul Ramsey pramsey at refractions.net
Mon Jan 28 14:34:02 PST 2008

The availability of venues for 1000 is not exactly super high. People  
need advance time to do a conference of this size.

I think allowing Sydney to pre-submit their interest during the '08  
process had the effect of freezing out some interest.  Tyler's note  
about "letters of intent" is well-taken, though it might have the  
effect of simply reducing down to a negotiated one submission per  

Finally, we may simply be running out of suckers.


On Jan 28, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:

> 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.
> -mpg
>> -----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,
>> Tyler
>> 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
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

More information about the Board mailing list