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

Peter Batty peter at ebatty.com
Wed Jun 1 21:20:04 PDT 2016


Hi all, I thought I would add a few quick thoughts.

I agree there are pros and cons to using an ongoing PCO, but I do think it
is worth further consideration. I think it's really important that we get
much better at not re-inventing things each year. While we have resources
like the FOSS4G cookbook, we do largely start from scratch each year and
FOSS4G is big enough now (and has been for a while) that I don't think this
is the best way to do things, it adds a lot of work for the LOC.

I don't think that having an ongoing PCO should stifle new ideas from LOCs
- you could argue the opposite, that if a PCO takes care of a lot of the
more mundane and time consuming stuff like registration and abstract
management and the web site (to name a few things), the LOC can have more
time to focus on new ideas, adding "local flavor", getting additional
interesting content, etc. At the same time, I think it's also worth saying
that from my organizing experience in Denver, stability / continuity is
more important to many attendees than doing things that are new and
different. I think we would all agree that FOSS4G conferences have a track
record of being great events, and while it's great for each event to have
some of its own flavor, and we want that, we also want to make sure we
maintain the aspects of what makes FOSS4G events good from one year to the
next. Actually this makes me think that one other example of something that
most ongoing conferences do but we really don't with the global FOSS4G is
to do surveys on what people liked and didn't like about each event, and
use that to feed into the next event. That's an example of something we
could do better on with or without a PCO.

I think that having LocationTech as an ongoing PCO (and they do more than a
typical PCO) for FOSS4G NA has worked well. I've been to 3 of the last 4 NA
events and they were all excellent I thought. I talked to Andrea at the
recent Raleigh event and she mentioned how it has become much easier to run
the event as they've done more of them.

There's a valid question about the importance of a PCO having local
knowledge. But I think there are some aspects of what they do that need
this and others that don't. There's a model where certain things could be
handled by an ongoing PCO (or staff member(s)) and other aspects handled by
a local PCO.

Cameron just sent a parallel email that mentioned the possibility of having
a paid position to be responsible for certain aspects of FOSS4G. That is
another way of addressing some of the matters we're discussing. That's not
close to a full time position I don't think. We could also contract such a
role to another organization, which has some attractions I think.

There are a lot of pretty complicated issues and pros and cons to discuss,
and I think that part of the challenge is that email isn't a very good
mechanism for discussing these or (especially) for coming to a conclusion.
A face to face meeting would be ideal but it's a challenge to get enough of
us in one place. Some of will be in Bonn but some will not - I probably
won't be, though there's a slight chance I'll find a way to make it. We
could possibly try to organize a hangout / conference call for those who
are interested?

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:46 AM, <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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20160601/c8e9630e/attachment.html>


More information about the Board mailing list