[Board] [OSGeo-Conf] Lessons Learned from FOSS4G Calgary 2020 and Recommendations for the future

[michael terner]

Jonathan:
Thank you for your insightful "lessons learned" document. Like Steven, I
have broad agreement with your observations and suggestions. Indeed, you've
had a unique lens of having to experience pretty much the worst outcome for
any LOC. Thank you also for your, and your team's time and the professional
and classy way you managed this extremely difficult situation. And, also a
big shout-out to the OSGeo Board for doing the right thing for the Calgary
team and covering 95% of the loss.

I also thank Steven for challenging the conventional wisdom and looking for
potentially radical alterations to the global FOSS4G standard operating
procedures. From my vantage, no matter what, we need to expect significant
change whether that's a move away from "big, in-person conferences" and/or
in how to improve delivering in-person conferences and supporting LOCs. As
per Jonathan's chronology of FOSS4G events from 2003 - 2020 this organism
will need to continue to evolve and adapt, perhaps radically. This
ecosystem is really in its adolescence and has yet to fully "grow up."

~~~~ TL;DR on the "few thoughts" expressed below ~~~~
Both virtual and in-person events are important. But, virtual is not a
complete substitute for in-person. As more time passes, the unique assets
of in-person will become clearer. OSGeo's current model of supporting
FOSS4G events is not necessarily scalable. Post-COVID (whenever that may
be) there will be a "new normal", and OSGeo/Conference Dev need to be
creative and open minded to adaptation and change (even major change).

A few thoughts on the big questions/recommendations raised by Jonathan and
Steven:

   - I agree with Jonathan on the value of in-person events. Virtual events
   are important and can be successful, but they offer a different kind
   experience. I see an important role for virtual events (especially for the
   near-term future). But they do not seem to be a replacement in-person.
   - I've encountered a couple of articles (links below) that attempt to
   describe the differences between virtual and in-person events (and echo
   much of what Jonathan relayed). And, I personally believe that as more time
   without in-person conferences passes there will be increased appreciation
   for what they offer. And, we are certainly not the only "conference team"
   thinking about these things, and as with the move to virtual, there will be
   other models to examine.
      -
      https://www.cmswire.com/digital-experience/virtual-conferences-will-not-replace-face-to-face-events/
      -
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/shephyken/2020/06/04/the-comeback-of-conferences-and-meetings/#4fb9bcd114cf
      - As someone who has worked from home for >2 years, I have found that
   virtual interactions are absolutely essential. But, I have also found they
   are greatly enhanced if you have met and interacted with people in person.
   Conferences create great opportunities for creating "face time" with a
   diverse array of people.
   - I know not all agree, but I believe there continues to be a need to
   lure more interest in FOSS4G from "conventional business" into the
   ecosystem. At an in-person conference one sees the whole ecosystem, and the
   people within it in action in a different way than virtual. A
   conference provides that "seeing is believing" moment. That's very much
   what happened to me in Denver in 2011. Business involvement does not just
   involve sponsors and funding, but there remains a need to foster adoption
   of FOSS4G technologies; and, conferences support that mission by providing
   an immersive experience for people who are evaluating open technologies and
   the companies that support them.
   - I appreciated the quote on Steven's 5th slide for FOSS4GUK Online: "*Right
   now our system is that several groups of inexperienced FOSS4G enthusiasts
   offer a dream, the conference committee and Board nod and say, 'here's
   $40-100,000, see you in 14 months' and then occasionally throw in a few
   additional demands.  At some point down the road, 14-24 months after the
   dream, a check of an indeterminate amount might come back to OSGeo.
   Despite how crazy this all sounds, it does mostly work pretty well.*"
   And, in hindsight it is somewhat remarkable that it has worked this well.
   But, this approach does not appear to be scalable (indeed, we've now lost 2
   conferences - Beijing [2012] and Calgary - in the last decade). And, after
   what the Calgary team has experienced, it is realistic to wonder whether it
   will be more difficult to find LOCs that are willing to take on these kinds
   of risks and do this volume of volunteer work. As Jonathan observes, there
   seems to be a need for a clearer business relationship between OSGeo and
   LOCs and perhaps, more proactive and *direct* support *from* OSGeo.
   - I agree with Steven that it will take some considerable time before
   there's any sense of "pre-COVID" normalcy, and there will be a new normal
   that is considerably different from 2019.
   - Jonathan's suggestion about considering a bi-annual global event is
   intriguing and provides an opening for strong regional/continental events
   as well as further virtual events. Equally, there's an opportunity for
   experimentation with the virtual "community building" that Steven described
   as a gap in his FOSS4GUK talk.

Lots to think about. And certainly some upcoming discussions to have and
eventually, decisions to be made.

MT

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:33 AM Jonathan Neufeld <jneufeld at tecterra.com>
wrote:

> Hi Steven,
>
>
>
> I think you raise a good question, and COVID-19 has created the space to
> ask it. I didn’t attend FOSS4GUKOnline unfortunately, as it seems like a
> great success, and I think virtual events have their place in the spectrum.
>
>
>
> I would rank them like this:
>
>
>
> 0: No event
>
> |
>
> |
>
> 5: Virtual Event
>
> |
>
> |
>
> 10: In-person event
>
>
>
> In my limited FOSS4G experience the biggest value to the event is meeting
> new people, creating new connections, and receiving a booster-shot of that
> I’m-doing-the-right-thing-with-the-right-people” feeling. Content comes
> second to this,  even though it’s notionally the reason that we’re all
> there. If I think about the FOSS4G events I’ve attended, we spent more time
> socializing and creating social bonds than we did in lectures or workshops.
> This isn’t to devalue the lectures and workshops, as I don’t think it would
> work to host a purely social event either. After a few months of
> video-meetings, and video-calls, and video-socialization, I’m getting weary
> of seeing people in 2D; it’s no match for an in-person experience.
>
>
>
> I could see evolving the model to something where you host
> Local/Regional/online events on the odd years, and then a global in-person
> FOSS4G on the even years.
>
>
>
> There is a magic fire in the FOSS4G gatherings, and my suggestions below
> to the CC and OSGeo Board are meant to recognize that it’s a large global
> movement (with large global benefits and risks) and to feed the flames
> accordingly.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 18, 2020 3:48 AM
> *To:* Jonathan Neufeld <jneufeld at tecterra.com>
> *Cc:* Conference Dev <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>; osgeo-board List <
> board at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Lessons Learned from FOSS4G Calgary 2020 and
> Recommendations for the future
>
>
>
> Jon thanks for a great summary of the questions that we need to address
> and for your recommendations which I largely agree with.
>
>
>
> I would add a further question - given the challenges of accessibility,
> the financial risks and the environmental impact of running a >1,000 person
> global event should we re-evaluate our whole events programme as part of
> our strategy for community building, outreach and financially sustaining
> OSGeo? I covered some of this in my keynote yesterday at FOSS4GUK, my
> slides are here
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VhViqXxRUQjMwc4ubVPrjE0dec31uwR12yVQBfVesc4/edit?usp=sharing (you
> will need to read the speaker notes)
>
>
>
> I would ask the board to consider Jon’s thoughts and recommendations and
> provide some guidance to CC as to how you want us to proceed
>
> ______
> Steven
>
> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
>
>
>
> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>”
> newsletter
>
>
>
> On 18 Jun 2020, at 05:05, Jonathan Neufeld <jneufeld at tecterra.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi CC,
>
> I saw the thread on updating the RfP docs ahead of the next large FOSS
> event, and I figured it was a good time to share my lessons learned from
> FOSS4G Calgary 2020. I think that the experience with Calgary should be a
> strong call to action to evaluate FOSS4G from the ground-up and look at
> ways that OSGeo and the community can build out a successful conference for
> the next decade.
>
> ========= Intro =========
> 2020 will forever be known as the year that COVID19 changed the way that
> we live, work, and interact. This global pandemic has led to millions of
> infections, thousands of deaths, and affected every single person on the
> planet.
> 2020 was also supposed to be the year that Calgary hosted the Free and
> Open Source Software for Geospatial (FOSS4G) event, a global event that we
> subsequently canceled due to the ongoing pandemic.
>
> In the interest of openness and transparency I am sharing with everyone
> the lessons I have learned along the way and my opinions on how to better
> the FOSS process. I want to be clear that these are my personal thoughts
> and opinions and may not be shared by others on the Calgary local
> organizing committee (LOC).
>
> == Context: Fast facts about FOSS4G 2020 ==
> - Planning Time: 2 years (Oct 2018 to Aug 2020)
> - Target Attendance: 1,200 to 1,500 people
> -- Break even attendance: 800 people
> - Total conference budget: $1M+
> - Actual Financial Loss: ~$62k CAD (~$48k USD)
>
> ========= The growing pains of a Global FOSS4G =========
> I wasn’t there where FOSS4G started out, but like most things it started
> small. In 2002 (https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G) there were 140 people
> gathering in Italy to discuss GRASS GIS. By 2006 it was officially named
> FOSS4G and 560 people attended in Switzerland. Organizing an early FOSS4G
> would have taken months of work, money for venues, and lots of thought. The
> events were grassroots and probably felt like you were getting together
> with your close friends for a few days of conversation.
>
> By contrast, the 2020 Calgary LOC started planning 2 years in advance,
> with a budget over $1M, and a target of 1,500 attendees from around the
> world.
> As a co-chair for the 2020 conference I feel that the bidding and
> engagement process is still rooted in the idea that this a small,
> grassroots event that can be done off the side of one’s desk.
>
> The reality is that FOSS4G has now reached the point where it is a major
> yearly global event that comes with a planning cycle >1 year. This means it
> also comes with a major budget, cash flow management challenges, and major
> risks.
>
> == Recommendation: ===
> - OSGeo should recognize that FOSS4G is a major global event and update
> the thinking, processes, and treatment of it to match.
>
> ========= Long Term Thinking vs Build-and-burn =========
> Each year FOSS4G is hosted by a new LOC, in a new location. The upside of
> this is that the community can engage new people, including people who
> would not have the means or opportunity to travel internationally.
>
> The downside is that each year a new LOC must build a FOSS4G from the
> ground up. I can’t name any other global event with 1,000+ attendees that
> starts over each year. By starting over, we lose knowledge, relationships,
> and the long-term vision for FOSS4G.
> Building new relationships with potential sponsors each year means that
> neither the sponsor, nor the LOC, can get the best deal. Since regional
> FOSS4G events are also running each year we all end up competing for
> limited sponsor dollars. If there was coordination and planning, then the
> regional and global events could work together to build better packages for
> sponsors and approach with one ask instead of multiple. With long-term
> thinking perhaps sponsors may be interested in long-term agreements to
> sponsor a range of events or activities with clear goals and benefits.
>
> This lack of continuity means that there is no long-term vision or
> strategy for FOSS4G, and LOCs can effectively build an event to their own
> parameters or choosing. If unchecked FOSS4G could drift radically from the
> intentions of the community, and risk ruining the reputation of this
> successful and long-running event.
>
> As I understand it, the main source of funding for OSGeo is some portion
> of the profits from FOSS4G which are donated by the LOC back to OSGeo. This
> assumes that the LOC a) chooses to make a profit on their event, and b) is
> able to make a profit on their event. Sponsor relationships are delicate
> and need to be maintained over time so that both parties can benefit. The
> Calgary LOC needed to raise $271,000 in sponsorship to host a successful
> FOSS4G. This is substantial amount of money to ask for, especially when you
> need to build these relationships from the ground up, and we were fortunate
> that many sponsors were willing to come on board (and as a show of good
> faith we are fully refunding them). Fundraising is a time consuming effort
> and could be greatly improved if these relationships were maintained by one
> or two individuals year to year.
>
> == Recommendations: ==
> -              OSGeo needs a clear long-term vision for FOSS4G, and
> should expect each year’s event to build on this vision
> -              OSGeo should employ a part- or full-time person to work
> with LOCs for all regional and larger events. This person would hold the
> vision, maintain sponsor relationships, and provide continuity on learnings
> from year to year
>
> ========= Conference Bidding: A Game of Contradictory Desires =========
> The bidding process to host a FOSS4G comes with opposing pressures to:
> 1. Keep ticket prices as low as possible, boosting the openness and
> accessibility of the event
> 2. Make as much profit as possible, boosting the amount returned to OSGeo
>
> OSGeo and the community need to decide which priority is the most
> important. Does OSGeo want an event that maximizes accessibility, or
> profit? Neither is a wrong choice, however each choice will lead to a
> different type of event. LOCs can’t be expected to win the bid on low
> price, and then return a huge profit to OSGeo. From past conversations on
> the conf_dev list I would suggest that profitability is a higher interest
> than many people would be willing to admit, especially if OSGeo depends on
> the surplus each year to fund operations.
>
> == Recommendation: ==
> - OSGeo should have a clear priority or target for balancing profits and
> accessibility
>
>
> ========= On Risk and Expectations =========
> Winning the right to host FOSS4G comes with a “gentleman’s agreement”
> handshake deal of implied benefits and conditions. The benefits are that
> you are the one and only group hosting the global event, that you have the
> support of the community, and the ability to access seed funding through
> OSGeo. The conditions are that you need to donate some percentage of the
> profits (if any) back to OSGeo at the conclusion of the event, and that you
> hold most of the risk.
> The primary risks when hosting a conference are the contracts with the
> venue, the hotels, and other vendors and suppliers. Many of these
> agreements have minimum amounts that rachet up as you approach the event,
> and canceling an event <6 months out means that the minimums add up to over
> $250k+
>
> The challenge with all of these benefits and conditions is that none of
> this is codified in a written agreement.
>
> == Recommendation: ==
> - OSGeo needs to create a written agreement between themselves and the
> winning LOC that clearly outlines the sharing of profit and risk
> - OSGeo needs to recognize that LOCs are taking on major financial risks
> to host these events, and these risks will grow as the event grows
>
> ========= Centralization vs Decentralized =========
> I recognize that these recommendations create tension between a
> centralized and decentralized approach. This may be uncomfortable for some
> readers as the decentralized approach has been the standard way. In these
> recommendations I am suggesting that OSGeo and the community could benefit
> by centralizing the core and critical aspects of FOSS4G so that each year's
> event would not need to start from the ground up. This does not mean
> elimination of LOCs or engaging the wider community in building a shared
> experience, indeed, being able to access a large community of engaged
> participants is a strength.
>
>
> ========= Conclusion =========
> I am grateful to the FOSS4G community, and to the past FOSS4G Chairs for
> the wisdom, knowledge, and help that they provided along the way. I am
> obviously disappointed and frustrated that we cannot host the event we have
> been working on for the past two years, and I am sad that we will not be
> able to have the wonderful FOSS4G community here in Calgary.
>
> Through this experience I have met incredible people, learned a few hard
> lessons, and remain an enthusiastic supporter of open geospatial
> technology. I hope that OSGeo and the entire community can learn from our
> experience and make the necessary changes to strengthen and improve future
> FOSS4G events.
>
> I also want to thank and recognize the OSGeo Board for reimbursing the
> Calgary LOC for 95% of the financial losses we incurred. This is a
> tremendous show of support during a difficult and unpredictable time, and I
> very much appreciate it.
>
> Thanks,
> Jon
>
> ========= TL;DR =========
> FOSS4G has evolved from a grassroots get together into a major
> international event and it's time to evolve the thinking about FOSS4G.
> It would benefit the community to increase continuity between events and
> move away from a build-and-burn mentality
>
>
> ========= Summary of Recommendations =========
> All my recommendations in one place
> Recommendation:
> - OSGeo should recognize that FOSS4G is a major global event and update
> the thinking, processes, and treatment of it to match.
> - OSGeo needs a clear long-term vision for FOSS4G, and should expect each
> year’s event to build on this vision
> - OSGeo should employ a part- or full-time person to work with LOCs for
> all regional and larger events. This person would hold the vision, maintain
> sponsor relationships, and provide continuity on learnings from year to
> year
> - OSGeo should have a clear priority or target for balancing profits and
> accessibility
> - OSGeo needs to create a written agreement between themselves and the
> winning LOC that clearly outlines the sharing of profit and risk
> - OSGeo needs to recognize that LOCs are taking on major financial risks
> to host these events, and these risks will grow as the event grows
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev



-- 
Michael Terner
ternergeo at gmail.com
(M) 978-631-6602
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20200621/33053e80/attachment.htm>