[Board] foss4g europe

Thu Nov 21 08:28:04 PST 2013

I've read it too and disagree in many ways. You present one valid point
of view, but there are many others, like

Conference is not only about  profit, but another gain is building of
the community and remember - OSGeo is community

"FOSS4G" brand is clearly owned by someone else, than OSGeo. OSGeo has
no right to the brand and till now it was always respected. That it
might not look like that from outside does not mean, it is not true.
(Speaking in shortcuts here, things are of course more complicated).

Relation between regional, semi-regional and global events has to be
find. And this is happening right now.

This are just very short notes, which come to my mind. Just wanted to
point at "another points of view" around there.

Jachym

Dne 21.11.2013 14:21, Jeff McKenna napsal(a):
> Thanks for these comments Steven.  I've read it twice and am letting it
> all sink in. (sometimes better than me striking back saying I don't
> agree etc.)
> 
> Talk soon,
> 
> -jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013-11-21 6:45 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I have been following this discussion with a lot of interest as it
>> covers several topics that have come up during the last year as we were
>> planning FOSS4G 2013. My comments are offered as both a past FOSS4G
>> chair and as a newcomer to the OSGeo who can maybe bring an outsiders
>> view and a little commercial perspective.
>>
>> I think there are 3 interlinked topics here - 
>>
>>  1. OSGeo's funding needs and funding model
>>  2. The relationship of regional events and the global annual FOSS4G
>>     (and implicitly the level of control/authority/guidance that OSGeo
>>     offers)
>>  3. The "ownership" of the FOSS4G brand
>>
>>
>> *1. OSGeo's funding needs and funding model*
>>
>> Inevitably there is potential for much discussion about how light or
>> substantial an organisation OSGeo should be and what level of funding is
>> needed to support that organisation. I am not going to go down that
>> rabbit hole in this mail. However it is clear that even the lightest
>> organisation will need some level of funding and if we aspire to support
>> projects, codesprints, extend outreach or education activities and
>> provide seed funding for new chapters and events we will need some funding.
>>
>> Unless we identify a new funding model the 2 primary sources of funding
>> will be direct donations from sponsoring organisations and the surplus
>> generated from events. Consequently I would suggest that all events that
>> sit under the OSGeo umbrella and either use it's branding (OSGeo or
>> FOSS4G) or request seed funding and/or financial guarantees should be
>> expected to contribute some of the surplus that they generate back to OSGeo.
>>
>> *2. The relationship of regional events and the global annual FOSS4G*
>>
>> Events generate a surplus largely from sponsorship. It is difficult to
>> even break even on the costs of a venue, catering, AV and other costs
>> from the fees charged to delegates without increasing fees to a level
>> that will discourage attendance and conflict with our outreach objectives. 
>>
>> The level of sponsorship income is related to the size and profile of
>> the audience and consequently the global FOSS4G should be the biggest
>> draw for delegates and have the greatest potential for sponsorship
>> income and surplus. In this regard there is some reason to argue that
>> regional events should be timed and marketed so as not to diminish the
>> impact of the global event. 
>>
>> We were concerned that FOSS4G-NA and FOSS4G-CEE might have an adverse
>> effect on the results for FOSS4G 2013, that did not happen and delegate
>> numbers and sponsorship income proved to be very good (we will publish
>> our results shortly, the accounts are just being finalised). 
>>
>> That said there did not appear to be any grand plan on the timing and
>> marketing of the regional events alongside the global event. If we want
>> the global event to be a significant source of funding for our work then
>> we need to have some process to ensure that other OSGeo regional or
>> local events are coordinated with this in mind. Of course no one can or
>> should prevent a group of enthusiasts from organising an event around
>> open source geo but if that group wants to claim affiliation or
>> endorsement from OSGeo then a precondition should be that the event is
>> scheduled to fit in with other preplanned events (time and geography
>> influence this).
>>
>> *3. The "ownership" of the FOSS4G brand*
>>
>> If you search for FOSS4G in your favourite search engine or on twitter
>> you will have to dig down further than I was prepared to go to find a
>> usage of the term that does not relate to OSGeo. We may have adopted a
>> term or the title of an event that pre-existed the creation of OSGeo but
>> I think that by now we can make a fair claim to FOSS4G being a brand
>> "owned" by OSGeo. I am sure that the rest of the world considers FOSS4G
>> to be synonymous with OSGeo. After all "Free and Open Source Software
>> for Geo" sums up what we believe in and what we do. I strongly support
>> the previous suggestion that we should explore the possibility of
>> getting a trademark (or the appropriate protection) for the brand.
>>
>> If the proposition that FOSS4G is a de facto brand of OSGeo is accepted
>> then it follows that OSGeo should exercise some control (hopefully with
>> a light touch) over how the brand is used and by whom.
>>
>> *4. So what do we do?*
>> *
>> *
>> If the Board and the wider community agree with most of the above then
>> the priority would be for the conference group to draft a framework for
>> the coordination of the global, regional and national events, the use of
>> the OSGeo and FOSS4G brands, the provision of seed funding and the
>> distribution of event surpluses. 
>>
>> I am willing to kick that off if the board and conference team wish and
>> if others who are more community experienced will  participate.
>>
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 

-- 
Jachym Cepicky
jachym.cepicky at gmail.com
http://les-ejk.cz
PGP: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20131121/c00e4159/attachment.sig>