[Board] [OSGeo-Conf] Conference Committee Review, WAS: Proposal: Invite Andrea Ross, from LocationTech to join the OSGeo Conference Committee

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Wed Jun 1 14:29:46 PDT 2016

Re: local vs global PCO: Something in between might be better. Something 
floated and seriously considered a few years back was to have a paid 
position at OSGeo whose primary responsibility is to support FOSS4G 
LOC's. OSGeo would need to decide whether it can afford such a position.

Re: Conference committee vs Board selecting conferences. There will 
likely always be many board members with interest and experience in 
conferences. If a board member wishes to contribute to discussion about 
conferences, it should be done on the conference email list. If the 
board member wishes to put in the extra effort required to research 
conference proposals and help with conference selection, they should 
join the conference committee. Of course, the board should have final 
say and veto over a conference committee decisions, and can also provide 
OSGeo goals which flow down to the conference committee.

On 1/06/2016 9:46 pm, till.adams at fossgis.de wrote:
> Hi,
> just two cents from LOC 2016:
> to 1.: I also do not like the idea of a fixed PCO. Our (2016) PCO is 
> locally rooted, they know the venue, the city, the things you can do 
> on a local base. It would be dangerous not to have the possibility to 
> catch hold of this knowledge. Also, in my eyes, having always the same 
> PCO means that FOSS4G conferences get equal and equal. One of the 
> things I like, is that LOC's have the freedom to do something new, to 
> add in new elements into a conference. That keeps FOSS4G living and 
> kind of surprising. The same PCO bears the danger to do "business as 
> usual" year to year.
> Pricing:
> If the board decides that we want cheaper/free tickets for 
> students/people from 3rd world countries, the board must take over 
> full financial risk for every event (as it should be in general in my 
> eyes). Offering such reduced fees leads to a very very difficult 
> situation of financial planning for LOC's.
> Regards, Till
> Am 2016-05-31 19:43, schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> Summing up my views on various topics on this mail thread
>> I am in the camp that says that the current process sort of works,
>> there is always room for improvement but I would be against Dave’s
>> approach of locking us into a fixed PCO and pushing the selection to
>> the Board.
>> 1) Is there a PCO with expertise to operate across the whole globe? I
>> doubt that any of the smaller cost effective providers could offer
>> that service
>> 2) The key to a successful event is an energetic and imaginative LOC,
>> the current process has thrown up a heck of a lot of good teams who
>> have worked immensely hard. Would a change to a board determined
>> choice of city have the same effect?
>> 3) there is nothing to stop the Board suggesting to a city/LOC that
>> they should submit a proposal. the initial letter is very simple and
>> quick
>> BTW we still have an outstanding topic to get a board decision on how
>> we wish to interface with Location Tech on the global event. Can they
>> be a PCO, underwriter and joint promoter of the event? This topic
>> generated a lot of debate (some of which was regrettable in tone) when
>> we were choosing for 2017. It would be good to be clear on this before
>> starting the 2018 process.
>> There has been some discussion about the cost of FOSS4G, whether it
>> is too expensive, how it could be reduced etc. I have helped to
>> organise a lot of events and I do not know how you can run an event
>> without incurring expenses (venues, catering, AV, wifi, registration
>> etc) of course there are cheaper ways of doing things but they are
>> rarely done for nothing. So the delegate price is a function of
>> choices on venue etc, the level of sponsorship that we can attract (in
>> recent years between $10 and $20 per delegate approx) and the level of
>> surplus returned to OSGeo (in recent years between $10 and $15 per
>> delegate approx) and the number of free entries that we offer to
>> speakers, workshops, students and those from less advantaged
>> communities. It would be helpful if the Board could set some policy on
>> this topic before we go out for the 2018 call.
>> I agree with that we should have a more transparent way of evaluating
>> bids as CC chair perhaps I should put together a straw man of
>> selection criteria (a bit like tender making criteria)? Possible
>> criteria could include - ticket cost, travel cost, accommodation cost,
>> strength of LOC, any requirements for an OSGeo financial guarantee,
>> risk, innovation, outreach programme, grant programme, etc.
>> There is a lot of work involved in assessing bids, I am in favour of
>> leaving the selection to the CC with the Board having the final
>> approval. This reduces workload on the board (except those members who
>> are also CC members).
>> Re membership of CC. I remain of the opinion that it should comprise
>> up to 12 past chairs or vice chairs of global and regional events with
>> selection by the Board if there are more candidates than places (norm
>> should be to retire from CC after a max of 4 or 5 years, enough is
>> enough after all!). You don’t need to be a member of the CC to express
>> opinions on the CC list or to contribute time in working on policies
>> etc on the wiki, but past experience should be a criteria for being
>> one of those voting.
>> I have suggested in the past that the CC should have the ability to
>> influence the timing of regional events that might conflict with the
>> global event. One way would be requiring anyone who wanted to use the
>> FOSS4G brand for an event to apply to CC with their proposed dates.
>> Need not be a cumbersome process but would establish a way to avoid
>> conflicts.
>> It would be great to have a f2f between board and CC members when we
>> are all in Bonn, no time will be perfect for everyone so how about
>> 16.00-17.00 on Wednesday 25th August (finishing well before the AGM)?
>> Till has offered to allocate a room to us. Shall I set up a doodle
>> with a couple of time slots for people to choose or just go for this
>> one?
>> ______
>> Steven
>>> On 31 May 2016, at 16:01, Helena Mitasova <hmitaso at ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>> Dave,
>>> I agree with Maxi. I have been involved with conference committee 
>>> for many years and served on steering committees for academic track
>>> on quite a few of them and I actually like the current system where 
>>> we have FOSS4G NA organized by LocationTech and the other
>>> conferences organized in quite diverse ways by LOC. I think 
>>> LocationTech has done a great job for the conference in Raleigh,
>>> I liked the way how it was organized.
>>> But at the same time, as Venka mentioned some time ago, conferences 
>>> organized by LOC help build the community and broaden
>>> the cultural experience - each LOC brings something new to the 
>>> conference and I think that is a good thing,
>>> as the diversity of approaches makes the conference series more robust.
>>> I think that Maxi’s suggestion for more transparent evaluation would 
>>> help to clear some misunderstanding on the votes
>>> both at the conference committee level and the board level.
>>> Regarding Cameron’s note about the need for experience with 
>>> conferences when making the decisions, when you look at the board 
>>> members,
>>> you can see extensive experience with organizing FOSS4G conferences 
>>> at all levels for many years, including running the conferences
>>> and working with LOCs.
>>> On the more practical side, for 2018 RFP we will need to address the 
>>> timing of FOSS4G NA and FOSS4G  Global becuase
>>> they are geting too close with May too late and August too early 
>>> (and a vacation time!).
>>> Helena
>>>> On May 31, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Dave McIlhagga 
>>>> <dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Cameron and Maxi,
>>>> Thanks for the quick feedback on this.
>>>> The decision (ie who makes it) I think here is less of the issue 
>>>> than the actual process itself.
>>>> Does anyone else feel that we could do a better job here if we 
>>>> scrapped this competitive LOC process and instead worked to compare 
>>>> potential cities/countries and make a decision this way?
>>>> FOSS4G-NA has worked this way for several years, and it seems like 
>>>> a much more collaborative approach to making a decision, instead of 
>>>> the bureaucratic RFP-like process we’ve put in place that really 
>>>> locks us in to a pre-set path.
>>>> Dave
>>>>> On May 31, 2016, at 1:44 AM, Massimiliano Cannata 
>>>>> <massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch> wrote:
>>>>> Dear all
>>>>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
>>>>> I see the current process quite fine with conf com evaluating the 
>>>>> proposal and the board confirm or eventually override the rank given.
>>>>> The only thing i can suggest is to have a transparent process of 
>>>>> evaluation in the sense of having well defined evaluation criteria 
>>>>> justified by voting members.
>>>>> E.g.: Not only my vote for A but for A-prices: 7 out of 10 with 
>>>>> short motivation.
>>>>> In this way results are transparent and easier to be understood.
>>>>> Cameron, i think that saying that if you didn't run a big 
>>>>> conference you are not eligible for voting is deeply wrong.
>>>>> It is like excluding users from PSC because are not developers. 
>>>>> Diversity of visions and ideas and point of view brings often 
>>>>> innovation and improve the processes.
>>>>> Maxi
>>>>> Il 30/Mag/2016 23:52, "Cameron Shorter" 
>>>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>>> Dave,
>>>>> I like where you are going with this email thread.
>>>>> I'll expand to say that making an informed decision about FOSS4G 
>>>>> city selection involves:
>>>>> 1. A significant time studying proposals
>>>>> 2. Significant experience understanding the complexities running a 
>>>>> conference (as experienced by prior foss4g committees)
>>>>> Unless board members have been involved in running a conference 
>>>>> they would likely need to defer to expertise of others in making a 
>>>>> FOSS4G decision.
>>>>> Volunteer effort is thin in both the conference committee and the 
>>>>> board committee (to the level required to understand a FOSS4G 
>>>>> proposal). I agree with Dave about outsourcing this work.
>>>>> As it stands, I think the conference committee is better qualified 
>>>>> to make a better decision on FOSS4G selection. But board input 
>>>>> should be welcomed.
>>>>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>>>> On 31/05/2016 1:11 am, Dirk Frigne wrote:
>>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>> Thank you for your mail.
>>>>>> It is very informative, and I will put a topic on the next board 
>>>>>> meeting
>>>>>> on June, 9. I think the points we should discuss at the board 
>>>>>> level are:
>>>>>> 1. What does the board expect from the conference committee, so 
>>>>>> it can
>>>>>> make a right decision.
>>>>>> 2. What is the vision of the board concerning the most important 
>>>>>> event
>>>>>> of OSGeo.
>>>>>> It is clear FOSS4G (main and side events) become more and more 
>>>>>> important
>>>>>> to outreach to new potential members, and to connect and 
>>>>>> 'energise' the
>>>>>> current members. Almost every week there is a FOSS4G event 
>>>>>> somewhere on
>>>>>> this planet. It should be great to have an overview list of all the
>>>>>> FOSS4G events taken place in the last 10 years. I've seen a slide by
>>>>>> Till about the global FOSS4G events with the number of attendees, 
>>>>>> but an
>>>>>> overview of all the events would give a good insight in the 
>>>>>> importance
>>>>>> of the movement.
>>>>>> I will be in Bonn and open for a face2face meeting with other 
>>>>>> members of
>>>>>> the committee to discuss these topics.
>>>>>> Dirk.
>>>>>> On 30-05-16 16:07, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
>>>>>>> Steven,
>>>>>>> First of all - I think this committee has done a lot of really 
>>>>>>> good and
>>>>>>> very important work over the years, so for everyone here please 
>>>>>>> don’t
>>>>>>> take any of this as a criticism of the work that’s been done in the
>>>>>>> past. I think we’ve done the best we can with what we’ve had to 
>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>> with and the mandate of the committee.
>>>>>>> Note: I’ve cc’d the board here as some of this needs to be 
>>>>>>> discussed at
>>>>>>> the board level not just within this committee.
>>>>>>> I have a few areas of concern that I think are worth a 
>>>>>>> discussion here:
>>>>>>> 1. *Who Decides?*
>>>>>>> I believe we need to separate out the “Doing” from “Decisions” —
>>>>>>> Committee’s are put in place to handle the _/workload/_ that 
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> too onerous for the board, and to make decisions that 
>>>>>>> individually have
>>>>>>> _/relatively low impact on the organization as a whole/_. The 
>>>>>>> Board is
>>>>>>> responsible for making the _/decisions that will have 
>>>>>>> significant impact
>>>>>>> on the organization/_.
>>>>>>> With that in mind — my suggestion here is that regardless of the 
>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>> we go through to decide on locations for future events, organizing
>>>>>>> committees, timing etc.., (more on this below) the board should be
>>>>>>> making the ultimate decision on the annual event, if for no 
>>>>>>> other reason
>>>>>>> than it’s financial impact on the organization. Any event could 
>>>>>>> have +/-
>>>>>>> $100,000 impact on the organization, and this today is the primary
>>>>>>> source of funding for OSGeo. By definition, that makes this 
>>>>>>> decision the
>>>>>>> most important decision OSGeo makes every year.
>>>>>>> Having said that — as we all know here, there is a ton of leg 
>>>>>>> work that
>>>>>>> precedes making this decision — and that’s where the work of this
>>>>>>> committee should be focused. If this group can be in the 
>>>>>>> business of
>>>>>>> _running and managing_ the process of putting on the conference 
>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>> year, and _advising_ the board on options, pros/cons, etc.. ie. 
>>>>>>> helping
>>>>>>> the board to make an informed decision, then we’re doing our job 
>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>> committee. Then the board can make this key decision based on the
>>>>>>> direction the board is taking the organization. Is fundraising
>>>>>>> important? Is hosting the event in places OSGeo is strong 
>>>>>>> important? Or
>>>>>>> maybe in places it’s weak and wants to grow? Depending on budget 
>>>>>>> plans
>>>>>>> and many other factors — the answers to these questions can be 
>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>> 2. *Selection Process*
>>>>>>> I feel that the competitive process we’ve established that was 
>>>>>>> arguably
>>>>>>> well suited for the early days of OSGeo (it was definitely a step
>>>>>>> forward from yours truly choosing - which was the process 
>>>>>>> pre-OSGeo) —
>>>>>>> has run it’s course. With the amount of experience we have under 
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> collective belts, and the size of the events we’re dealing with, 
>>>>>>> why do
>>>>>>> we every year need to more or less start from scratch, and waste
>>>>>>> valuable community volunteer time in competition rather than doing
>>>>>>> something collaboratively?
>>>>>>> A very simple example of where the current process fails to meet 
>>>>>>> OSGeo’s
>>>>>>> needs is the proposed dates from the most recent selection process.
>>>>>>> Every proposal suggested an August date for the event … why? 
>>>>>>> Because it
>>>>>>> was the cheapest period to rent venues, and could as a result 
>>>>>>> drive the
>>>>>>> most profit for OSGeo, increasing every LOCs chance of being 
>>>>>>> selected.
>>>>>>> That’s possibly the right way to do things … but it also means
>>>>>>> overlapping with many peoples vacation periods, meaning many 
>>>>>>> attendees
>>>>>>> that would typically come, won’t. Was that a good thing? The 
>>>>>>> competitive
>>>>>>> process meant right or wrong, we were more or less “stuck” with an
>>>>>>> August date.
>>>>>>> What if instead we did something along the following (this is 
>>>>>>> just to
>>>>>>> get the brain juices flowing, not definitive):
>>>>>>> 1. Find a PCO we can work with year-after-year … this would make 
>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>> simpler for the committee, and cheaper for OSGeo as there’s no
>>>>>>> year-after-year re-learning. It also means we can much more 
>>>>>>> effectively
>>>>>>> learn from our mistakes and have consistent relationships to 
>>>>>>> work with
>>>>>>> to put on a better show every year.
>>>>>>> 2. We come up with a predictable date/schedule so that attendees 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> critically sponsors can plan around it year-after-year.
>>>>>>> 3. Committee looks into optional cities/countries to host 
>>>>>>> through a lens
>>>>>>> of a combination of availability, cost, transport access, and 
>>>>>>> access to
>>>>>>> locals who could help form a LOC. If this sounds like a lot of 
>>>>>>> work …
>>>>>>> well that’s why you have a PCO you work with year after year, 
>>>>>>> who can do
>>>>>>> the leg work on this for you efficiently and far better than any 
>>>>>>> of us
>>>>>>> can. This also gives you *negotiating* position with the various
>>>>>>> venues/hotels/cities. With a conference the size of FOSS4g, most 
>>>>>>> cities
>>>>>>> have one venue that can support it … not much bargaining room when
>>>>>>> you’re the LOC. But when you’re OSGeo that go to any city .. you 
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> negotiate.
>>>>>>> 4. All of this combined allows us to consult the board on 
>>>>>>> options we’re
>>>>>>> finding, fine tune based on the board’s needs — and ultimately 
>>>>>>> work in
>>>>>>> collaboration with the board to come up with a selected city, 
>>>>>>> that has a
>>>>>>> high chance of success given we’re putting our collective 
>>>>>>> knowledge and
>>>>>>> the PCOs together without having to pick “one proposal vs. 
>>>>>>> another”.
>>>>>>> I’m not sure if this is all making sense — sometimes email isn’t 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> best communicator, but I guess my point is, I think we can do a lot
>>>>>>> better than the current process, and arguably with far less 
>>>>>>> cumulative
>>>>>>> volunteer time when you combine the efforts of the committee and X
>>>>>>> bidding LOCs.
>>>>>>> Worth a discussion at least I’d suggest?
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>> Dave McIlhagga
>>>>>>> dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com <mailto:dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com>
>>>>>>> /Maps at your fingertips/
>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>> www.mapsherpa.com <http://www.mapsherpa.com>
>>>>>>>> On May 27, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>> Surely the board should delegate important tasks to its 
>>>>>>>> committees not
>>>>>>>> take on more work?
>>>>>>>> It sounds like you think something has gone wrong with the 
>>>>>>>> selection
>>>>>>>> process, can you explain?
>>>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>>>> On 26 May 2016, at 19:28, Dave McIlhagga 
>>>>>>>>> <dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Steven,
>>>>>>>>> I couldn’t agree more — this committee has probably the single
>>>>>>>>> biggest impact of any OSGeo activities on the Foundation,
>>>>>>>>> particularly from a financial perspective.
>>>>>>>>> If we’re going to look at this — I think we should look at the 
>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>> picture of how we do things here. It has long been a concern 
>>>>>>>>> of mine
>>>>>>>>> that the most important decision that OSGeo makes every year is
>>>>>>>>> effectively delegated away by the board who is the elected 
>>>>>>>>> group in
>>>>>>>>> fact charged with representing the interests of the membership.
>>>>>>>>> The number 1 change I would recommend is that this committee 
>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>> all of the logistical services to review conference options, help
>>>>>>>>> local organizing committees, and all of the other leg work a
>>>>>>>>> committee exists to handle. But the over-riding guidance of 
>>>>>>>>> what the
>>>>>>>>> international FOSS4G annual conference should be all about, 
>>>>>>>>> how OSGeo
>>>>>>>>> decides where/how conference is hosted and run each year, should
>>>>>>>>> really be in the domain of the Board.
>>>>>>>>> This group can help that process out extensively given the 
>>>>>>>>> breadth of
>>>>>>>>> experience of the members. If it makes sense to continue the RFP
>>>>>>>>> process as we have in the past (which I’m not convinced of) - 
>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> this committee can manage that whole process, but I don’t 
>>>>>>>>> believe we
>>>>>>>>> should be casting the votes. It’s too important a decision for 
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Foundation. Providing experience, perspective, and commentary on
>>>>>>>>> proposals to the board is reasonable — but I feel it’s time 
>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>> board take back this decision making authority.
>>>>>>>>> Technically, the board does approve the decision of the 
>>>>>>>>> committee —
>>>>>>>>> but this has never been overturned, and in my opinion, the 
>>>>>>>>> year we
>>>>>>>>> failed in China was a direct outcome of this process - I don’t 
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> we’ve really learned our lesson from that yet.
>>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>>> On May 26, 2016, at 12:40 PM, Steven Feldman 
>>>>>>>>>> <shfeldman at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>>>> Definitely not my intention to indicate support no process.
>>>>>>>>>> Conference Committee is imho second most important committee of
>>>>>>>>>> OSGeo, my view is it should have process for selection, clear 
>>>>>>>>>> bounds
>>>>>>>>>> of authority and expectations on members.
>>>>>>>>>> Would be good to hear views from a broad cross section of 
>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>> and past members
>>>>>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 May 2016, at 22:01, Andrea Ross <andrea.ross at eclipse.org
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:andrea.ross at eclipse.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Steven, All
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you stating no process or criteria because you believe 
>>>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>>>> best, or to draw attention to it being a very bad idea? I can't
>>>>>>>>>>> tell through email. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/05/16 13:08, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that had been agreed by nearly everyone who 
>>>>>>>>>>>> commented
>>>>>>>>>>>> although there may have been one or two objections 
>>>>>>>>>>>> including mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that if you want to join conference committee 
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>> process or criteria, you say you want to join and then you 
>>>>>>>>>>>> can.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite what happens when you go silent I don't know? Membership
>>>>>>>>>>>> allows vote for location of FOSS4G which raises question about
>>>>>>>>>>>> potential "packing" of vote but so far we've not had a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem so
>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe not an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If Maxi wants to be a member, I guess he is one. @Maxi, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> feel free
>>>>>>>>>>>> to add yourself to the current members list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 May 2016, at 15:19, Venkatesh Raghavan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venka.osgeo at gmail.com <mailto:venka.osgeo at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/05/24 20:13, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference Committee,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose that we invite Andrea Ross to join 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the OSGeo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference Committee.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Firstly, we need to decide on the request from Maxi to join
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conference committee which was seconded by me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venka
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 from me, Cameron Shorter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My reasoning is that Andrea has a lot of experience running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conferences,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially through his involvement with LocationTech, and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synergies that could be gained by aligning OSGeo and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocationTech
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I note that there have been concerns aired previously about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocationTech
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competing to take over OSGeo's flagship FOSS4G event. I'm 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we should be mindful of this, but we should discuss 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the options
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> openly and I believe we can find a solution favourable 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for all. An
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effective way to support this conversation is to invite 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote among our conference committee.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/05/2016 6:31 am, Andrea Ross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Steven, & Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not been invited to the conference committee, but I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bonn, and I'm always glad to chat/meet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2016 3:04:03 AM EDT, Steven Feldman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shfeldman at gmail.com <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who is going to be in Bonn for FOSS4G?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's an opportunity for the Conference Committee and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people to meet face to face, we could discuss some of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the topics on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'outstanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we could start preparing the call for 2018
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone interested?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org 
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org 
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org 
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Board mailing list
>>>>>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Cameron Shorter,
>>>>> Software and Data Solutions Manager
>>>>> LISAsoft
>>>>> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>>>>> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>>>>> P +61 2 9009 5000,  W
>>>>> www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Board mailing list
>>>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> Helena Mitasova
>>> Professor at the Department of Marine,
>>> Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
>>> and Center for Geospatial Analytics
>>> North Carolina State University
>>> Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
>>> hmitaso at ncsu.edu
>>> http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html
>>> "All electronic mail messages in connection with State business 
>>> which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC 
>>> Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.”
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20160602/37f21081/attachment.html>

More information about the Board mailing list