[Board] FOSS4G Regional Events

Tue Jul 23 16:33:30 PDT 2013

Frank and Cameron,

I think you've both hit the nail right on the head. Before the DC event,
there was a push to start an NA Chapter explicitly to help with putting
some broader framework around this regional event. At the time, the Board
did not see the value in having any sorts of "meta" chapters and the
request for an NA Chapter was turned down. There currently is no process
for reaching consensus on where the next NA event.

My main argument is not whether we need an NA Chapter or whether we want
OSGeo Global to pick the NA event, but we do need something. With the
successes of the DC event and the Minneapolis event (and the very
significant seed money we have earmarked for the next NA specific event) I
am very optimistic about the continued growth of the NA event.

As to Cameron's "control" vs. "support". I would say that support from
OSGeo is absolutely welcome and critical for continued success. I have to
admit to being more ambivalent on the control question. I would personally
be OK with more OSGeo control, but if that is the case, we need to make
what that means very clear. Ambiguity of expectations is the thing that
will lead to problems whether those are with revenue sharing or
expectations of things that need to happen at events (ie OSGeo table/ Live
DVD).

David

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com>wrote:

> David,
>
> I'm curious how you think the FOSS4G-NA selection should work?  Initially
> reaching rough consensus amoung various interested parties can work (as for
> the first two events), but I *feel* that one of the benefits of OSGeo or a
> local chapter is some sort of relatively unambiguous way of reaching
> decisions.  Are you thinking there would be a FOSS4G-NA committee to make
> future siting decisions?  Should it continue to be by rough consensus among
> interested parties?
>
> In my ideal world there would be an at least moderately formalized
> committee to select new sites, possibly making a recommendation to the
> board if we want to have OSGeo holding money and backing the event.  If
> there was an NA chapter, then that chapter could take care of things.
>  Lacking that I'm not sure if there ought to be a FOSS4G-NA committee or
> what.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Cameron Shorter <
> cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  (Retitling this email thread as I don't believe it is relevant to the
>> FOSS4G global decision).
>>
>> Hi David,
>> I think you are touching on the subtle difference between "OSGeo support"
>> vs "OSGeo control" of regional FOSS4G events.
>> As you are hinting at, "Support" is welcome, "Control" is not. Ie, OSGeo
>> should aim to collect a repository of wisdom and best practices, which
>> regional conferences can draw upon, but still give regional conferences the
>> flexibility to be creative and innovative and do things differently if they
>> wish.
>>
>> With regards to city selection for FOSS4G-NA, I agree that it should be
>> up to the region to decide the process for selecting the city.
>>
>> On 23/07/2013 10:36 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
>>
>> The precedence to date has been that the regional events are events
>> selected and organized by the regions at a bit of an arms length from OSGeo
>> International. FOSS4G-NA in Minneapolis did not have the resources to
>> operate without OSGeo as a financial backstop (note we just needed the
>> "insurance"  of a financial backstop, not any up-front thanks to the
>> FOSS4G-NA organizers in DC).
>>
>>  If OSGeo is going to get in the business of selecting the locations for
>> any of these regionals, in my opinion, OSGeo better be willing to step up
>> to play a much more active role in these events. The direction from OSGeo
>> to these regional events has been wishy-washy at best. I think that OSGeo
>> needs a real strategy for these events. FOSS4G-NA is not a consolation
>> prize, it is an event thrown by and for the NA community with a focus on
>> the issues of that region.
>>
>>  If the OSGeo Board and the Conf Comm believe that an LOC needs more
>> experience, I think it is reasonable to encourage them to bid for a
>> regional event as things are run right now.
>>
>>  David
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Cameron Shorter <
>> cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi Mark,
>>> I do like your proposal of 1st place being awarded FOSS4G Global, and
>>> 2nd place being offered FOSS4G-NA the following year.
>>>
>>> However, I'm not sure who will be responsible for selecting the
>>> FOSS4G-NA city, or what process is in place (if any) for selecting a
>>> FOSS4G-NA city. If someone following this thread is in the know, I'd
>>> encourage you to speak up.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23/07/2013 12:01 PM, Mark Lucas wrote:
>>>
>>> Sounds like we are making up the rules as we go along.  I think we
>>> either have a board vote or not.  If someone wants to abstain because they
>>> believe they have a conflict of interest that should be their personal
>>> decision.
>>>
>>>  I'd like to find a way to select one as the international conference
>>> and let the other organize as a regional.
>>>
>>>  I'd really like to find a way to build up OSGeo revenues through some
>>> of the regional conferences as well.  Perhaps as simple as when they need
>>> OSGeo financial backing we work a division of profits.
>>>
>>>  First step is simply selecting the international venue.
>>>
>>>  Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Jul 22, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Daniel Morissette <
>>> dmorissette at mapgears.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13-07-22 8:33 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>>>
>>> Right, this makes sense Arnulf.
>>>
>>> My concern was merely that if there is one proposal with "broad support"
>>> (a.k.a. conflict of interest), and all those people step out of voting
>>> (both on the conf committee as on the board), the vote will be very
>>> skewed. This is exactly what Daniel has pointed out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, I believe Mark Lucas is on the DC LOC so we'd lose him as well for
>>> the vote unless I'm mistaken.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Morissette
>>> http://www.mapgears.com/
>>> Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing listBoard at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>> Cameron Shorter
>>> Software and Data Solutions Manager
>>> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
>>>
>>> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>>>
>>>
>>> Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>> Geospatial & Data Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Sourcehttp://www.lisasoft.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> ************************************
>> David William Bitner
>> dbSpatial LLC
>> 612-424-9932
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> Software and Data Solutions Manager
>> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
>> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>>
>> Think Globally, Fix Locally
>> Geospatial & Data Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Sourcehttp://www.lisasoft.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
> warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer
>

-- 
************************************
David William Bitner
dbSpatial LLC
612-424-9932
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20130723/e6115f01/attachment.htm>