[Board] [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2018 Draft Request for Proposals document for comment

Tue Sep 20 11:21:29 PDT 2016

Thanks Steven. I agree in giving flexibility in proposing  to the LOC and that some elements can be considered as plus for voting for one or another proposal.
About the cost (personally I prefer cheaper solution) in my opinion 650 has to be put as maximum  fee and then we have to specify for how many days.
Cheers!
Maria

Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
Date: 20/09/2016 20:02 (GMT+01:00)
To: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
Cc: OSGeo-Conf <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>, OSGeo Board <board at lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2018 Draft Request for Proposals document for comment

Thanks for leading this RfP process Steven.  It is a great improvement
in streamlining over the one I did last year.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I haven’t received many comments on the draft RfP. I hope that indicates
> broad agreement rather than that you haven’t had time to read it (it is a
> good bit shorter than previous years)
>
> I have received comments from Daniel and Till which I summarise below
>
> Change dates to ISO format yyyy-mm-dd (DM, done)
>
>
> The following are from Till:
>
> Extend period for submitting full proposals by 2-3 weeks (I am minded to
> extend by 2 weeks which pushes announcement back to 2016-12-19)
> Should we require the gala event to be included in the conference ticket
> price as has been the practice in recent years or do we wish to make it
> optional to reduce delegate fees? Or do we leave to the LOC as currently in
> the RfP? (my view leave to LOC to decide)

On most things, I think that flexibility for the LOC is better.

> Should the student awards be run by the Academic Track team or the Geo4All
> team? (my view is this should be Geo4All)

We can't really speak for other people and groups.  The LOC should
appropriately delegate this.

> Include a requirement to appoint an OSGeo financial representative to the
> LOC if OSGeo is providing seed funding and a guarantee (I agree with this
> recommendation)

Yes, this is fine to include.  It might also be included in the seed
funding agreement.  Maybe we should just add the seed funding
agreement as an appendix or link reference?

> Should we have a template for the full proposal? It would save LOC’s from
> spending too much money on drafting a fancy proposal. And it would imporove
> comparability of the bids. Alternatively we could make the key elements list
> of the RfP a mandatory structure? (I think this is a great idea but I am not
> sure that we have time to do a proper job this year)

Either way is fine.  There are certainly benefits for comparing the
bids, however, then all bids would be in some ways very similar, no
real dramatic changes if a LOC were inclined to bid something entirely
different.

> Budget template - should we make it mandatory to use our template? (I’m not
> sure, people have their own way of budgeting, once they add in lines and
> columns comparability becomes difficult)

In the past, budgets seem too different.  There are some main things
that get noticed (venue, food, hotel commitments, etc).

> Add a requirement for a risk assessment. What costs arise, how many months
> before the event, if you have to cancel. What if your estimated income on
> sponsorship is unrealistic? (Excellent suggestion)

Sounds good but I think that we have to acknowledge the reality that
FOSS4G is a daunting event with so many late registrations and
sponsorships and early large expenses.  Every year goes through a very
concerned period of time.  If our reality doesn't reflect that, then
this hurts instead of helps.  Also, once you articulate the reality,
then it perhaps seems unnecessary since it includes a period of time
of high risk.

> Require timing to be September rather than August which is easier for the
> European community (not sure I agree, no time will be perfect for everyone)

I prefer LOC flexibility.  September bids are more likely to get votes
from me but as we saw in the past, there can be three August bids.
We'll see how this works out with first attendance numbers from Bonn
and second Boston.  Venues can be tough with scheduling.

> The full delegate fee target of $650 should be for conference only (early
> bird?) with extra charge for workshops (I agree re NA and EU but I hope that
> a RoW event could show us how to run for less)

Sounds reasonable that workshops are extra.

> If an event is proposing to offer a lower cost option we should point out
> that we expect a professional well organised conference (I agree but wonder
> if that needs to be said or should be in the evaluation criteria)

Evaluation criteria and voting seem the more appropriate place to
apply this.  If you are bidding to present *The* Premier Open Source
Geospatial Conference and don't know this, then you have no chance
anyway.

>
>
> My responses are included in the brackets following each point. Unless
> others disagree strongly I will implement these changes on Thursday. I have
> also corrected a few typos and minor phrasings pointed out by Till.
>

I'm good with any changes how you make them.  My general comment is
that LOC flexibility is a good thing and reflects the reality of how
these conferences get accomplished.

Best regards, Eli

> If anyone has more comments or suggestions that they wish to make please get
> them to me by 18.00 GMT on 21st September. Please state whether your
> proposed change is a publication blocker if not incorporated, I will do my
> best to incorporate changes.
>
>
> ______
> Steven
>
>
> On 15 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All
>
> After several early drafts and wise advice from Cameron and Eli, here is the
> final draft of the RfP document for FOSS4G 2018.
>
> A little background to the changes:
>
> 1) The old RfP ran out at 58 pages with some long appendices. I have reduced
> the document to 12 pages by pushing the appendix of past reports to a page
> on the wiki and by cross referencing as much stuff as possible to the wiki
> (which also ensures that it is more likely to remain current)
>
> 2) The document is designed to be as generic as possible. It should need
> little change for 2019 etc unless we change major policy or processes.
>
> 3) The document is structured with all key information and dates in 2 tables
> at the beginning which are cross referenced throughout the doc
>
> 4) References to delegate prices and concessions have been left sufficiently
> open to allow/encourage bidders to suggest innovative models
>
> 5) There is specific reference to the availability of seed finance and the
> expectations of return to OSGeo if we provide funding.
>
> 6) In the past we had a complex voting system which required committee
> members to rank all proposals. We did not actually use that voting system
> and each member voted for one proposal. I have proposed a 1st and 2nd choice
> system (2nd choices are only used if there is a tie at the 1st vote stage)
>
> Please comment on the RfP by 18.00 GMT on Wednesday 21st, I need to
> integrate any changes before publishing the RfP on 23rd.
>
> Board members if you have any comments could you please post into this
> thread on Conference list rather than the board list.
>
> Potential FOSS4G bidders should be aware that this draft is subject to
> community comment and possible revision
>
> May the FOSS be with you
> ______
> Steven
>
> <FOSS4G2018-request-for-proposal-Final.pdf>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160920/fe3bad99/attachment.htm>