[Board] Re: [Foss4g2010] registration

[Lorenzo Becchi]

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>wrote:

> Lorenzo,
>
> Is it possible that you aren't or weren't on the board@ list when the
> review went by? The would explain this communications breakdown.



yep, that's it
:)

thanks a lot for your clear resume, I really appreciate it.
I've been very busy lately and I had no time to reflect on all the aspects
that were coming from the Board. I barely focused on day to day need for the
conference.
I suppose I have to apologize.
Tomorrow we have a face to face meeting with the LOC and it will be the
moment to debate in detail about all suspended issues. I will relate on
Wednesday.

Now I have more time to dedicate to communications, I'll try to mind the
gap.
;)

Lorenzo




> OSGeo
> (reasonably, I thnk) wants to approve the budget before passing off
> control to the LOC. It has done so the past three years. Everyone saw
> the budget and three people reviewed it, and asked questions
> [1][2][3]. Since the questions weren't answered it doesn't surprise me
> that no one jumped in and said "well, let's move this along to
> approval". Anyhow, that's my explanation for the apparent lack of
> urgency coming from board@
>
> As far as the actual suggestions in those comments goes, here's a
> response you can feel free to cut and paste:
>
> "Paul, Tyler, Jeff, thanks for your review and comments. With respect
> to the difference between the old wiki numbers and the budget, the
> numbers in the PDF are the ones. All fees, including the fees for the
> earlyearly registration are actually on the 2010 site now. With
> respect to your suggestions about early/late pricing differences,
> thanks, we've given this lots of thought and we're happy with the
> numbers as they stand. Since everyone who has reviewed the budget has
> declared it fit, would the board please move acceptance?"
>
> To use the FOSS analogy, FOSS4G2010 is your "feature" and the board is
> the PSC and you need to get an RFC past them before you can commit
> your feature to SVN. Acknowledge comments, accept or reject ideas,
> present your reasons and then ask for a decision to be made.  It is
> your baby, everyone acknowledges that, but we also all have a stake in
> the outcome, so it's not unreasonable to review and approve the plan
> before setting things in motion.
>
> The board will have no further involvement in FOSS4G, except via the
> Board and Past Chair reps on the LOC (my understanding was that Arnulf
> and Claude were proposed for those roles [4]), who will primarily
> monitor progress and report back if and only if things go terribly
> wrong or the budget no longer matches the facts on the ground.
>
> This is what the RFP had to say about governance:
>
> "Following the committee's decision, there is a process of
> establishing a local organizing committee (LOC) which will include
> both local organizers and representatives of OSGeo. The LOC will be
> expected to operate within a budget framework to be approved by the
> OSGeo board."
>
> The board is as busy with their lives as you are, they do not have the
> time or energy for meddling in your conference over the next 9 months
> (and don't worry, nor do I).
>
> Yours,
>
> Paul
>
>
> [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2009-December/003165.html
> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2009-December/003167.html
> [3] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2009-December/003171.html
> [4] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2009-December/003188.html
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Lorenzo Becchi <lorenzo at ominiverdi.com>
> wrote:
> > Honestly guys, this situation is not clear at all.
> >
> > From the LOC, we think we should have enough independence to decide when
> > it's time to move an initiative like opening subscriptions. We are happy
> to
> > have the chance to share the experience with others who organized this
> > conference before but we still need our freedom to move without asking
> > permission every time we do something important. We don't think this were
> > the agreements.
> >
> > From the board and conference committee I see there's an important
> interest
> > to collaborate, an we are happy of it. Anyway,  part of the support
> really
> > improves while part slows down the process.
> >
> > I can't forget we are all volunteers and we are investing part, or much,
> of
> > our spare time into this. Personally I'm investing even more of my spare
> > time. For this I would like to invite every intervention to be targeted
> to
> > make things easier to the organization instead making things more
> > complicated.
> >
> > If the board decide that me, or the LOC, are not good enough to organize
> > this event we are available to step back and leave the charge to somebody
> > else.
> > If instead the board think we are ok then, please, make our life easier.
> >
> > regards
> > lorenzo
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foss4g2010 mailing list
> > Foss4g2010 at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2010
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Foss4g2010 mailing list
> Foss4g2010 at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2010
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20091221/24b4747e/attachment.htm>