[Conference-cee] [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] FOSS4G rotation

Tue Apr 16 16:06:32 PDT 2013

I'd like to hear thoughts from people who organise FOSS4G regional 
events about the two year global / regional / global rotation.

In particular, would large regional conferences such as FOSS4G-NA or 
FOSS4G-EU or FOSS4G-CEE be interested in only holding events every 
second year?

On 16/04/2013 9:46 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
> I think Barend's suggestion of a two year scheme (regional in year X, 
> global in year Y) deserves some more discussion / attention.
>
> Personally I can see the benefits of this scheme (no big competition 
> from large regional conferences in the global year).
>
> Also, does OsGeo currently get money out of the big regional 
> conferences (such as FOSS4G-CEE and FOSS4G-NA)?
>
> Best regards,
> Bart
>
> -- 
> Bart van den Eijnden
> OSGIS - http://osgis.nl
>
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 11:34 AM, b.j.kobben at utwente.nl 
> <mailto:b.j.kobben at utwente.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hia ll,
>>
>> I am not a board member nor a conference committee member, but I feel an
>> urgent need to give my opinion here.
>>
>> I grow uncomfortable by some of the trends that seem to "logically 
>> follow"
>> (note the quotes, and yes I am exaggerating on purpose) from this
>> discussion:
>> 1)- FOSS4G events are there to make money
>> 2)- non NA/Europe events don't make (enough) money
>> 3)- non NA/Europe events get badly organized (see Beijng)
>>
>> Proposition 1 already makes me feel itchy. How can you 'charge' FOSS4G
>> main event organizers with being a cash cow ("expecting a $50K 
>> profit") if
>> at the same time encouraging (allowing?) other events to be organised 
>> that
>> almost certainly will cannabilise the main event (Foss4G-NA, FOSS4g CEE)
>> on which events you put no obligation to make money? I think we need a
>> two-year cycle: one year the main conference and other years regional 
>> ones
>> (i.e. ones actively supported by OSGEO "central", what the regional
>> chapters do on their own is their own responsibility).
>>
>> Proposition 2 is touching a nerve because I work at an institute that is
>> about capacity building for lesser developed countries. I think part of
>> OSGEO is promoting the use of FOSS, and bringing knowledge and experience
>> and enthousiasm about that to the places in the world that would profit
>> most from it is a good cause that is worth doing even if it brings you
>> less or no money. By all means subsidize the LDC meetings with profits
>> from the Europe/NA ones. Call me a specialist, but I prefer some
>> solidarity in this...
>>
>> Proposition 3 is plain not true. The South Africa FOSS4G was excellent in
>> my opinion, the Beijng one failed because of insufficient control
>> mechanisms (either in place or just not followed up on) to check on a
>> local organisation that chooses to do its own thing completely 
>> independent
>> of 'OSGEO central'. Could have happened with self-centered stubborn Dutch
>> organizers just as well, and certainly at least part of the blame should
>> be on the 'OSGEO central' shoulders...
>>
>> Yours truly,
>>
>> --
>> Barend Köbben
>> Senior Lecturer, ITC - University of Twente,
>> Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation
>> PO Box 217, 7500AE Enschede (The Netherlands)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13-04-13 14:30, "Cameron Shorter" <cameron.shorter at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank,
>>> I agree that a compelling proposal should include meeting foss4g
>>> financial expectations.
>>>
>>> For the record, the last board meeting discussed changing guidelines for
>>> foss4g budgets from expecting a $20K profit under conservative 
>>> estimates,
>>> to a $50K profit. (This would typically result in a $100K+ profit under
>>> expected conditions).
>>>
>>> David Bitner, pointed out that a $100K profit spread across 1000
>>> attendees equates to $100 extra per delegate, which is a good point, but
>>> should be tempered against the variability of FOSS4G attendees, and the
>>> high impact on profits this has. Looking back at
>>> an old foss4g budget, I extrapolated some profit figures:
>>>
>>> Attendees: Profit
>>> 1000: $58K
>>> 900: $35K
>>> 800: $11K
>>> 700: -$11K
>>> 600: -$35K
>>> 500: -$58K
>>>
>>> While I made some gross generalisations in my extrapolation, the take
>>> home message is that fixed costs of a large conference such as 
>>> FOSS4G are
>>> very high, and consequently, a small percentage increase or decrease in
>>> attendance has high impact on profitability.
>>> So if we want to ensure a worst case scenario of 500 delegates will 
>>> break
>>> even, then we should expect to make a $110K profit for an expected
>>> attendance of 1000.
>>>
>>> On 13/04/13 08:10, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Cameron,
>>>
>>>
>>> I feel this question ties into the expected revenue to some degree.  I'm
>>> personally fine with your suggestion with the caveat that we should
>>> expect a "compelling proposal" to meet our revenue generation guidelines
>>> which is (IMHO) going to be hard
>>> to do if aim for $50K revenue in the conservative case.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm also fairly flexible on this who issue, but I *feel* like every time
>>> we have a revenue discussion we come up with one set of conclusions, but
>>> somehow we fail to actually apply those conclusion when setting
>>> requirements for the conference.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In the last board meeting, the question was raised about global FOSS4G
>>> rotation.
>>>
>>> we currently have a 3 way rotation policy: Europe 2013 / North America
>>> 2014 / Rest of world 2015
>>>
>>> It has been suggested that we should revisit this rotation policy, and
>>> consider:
>>>
>>> Europe / North America / Europe / North America
>>>
>>> Reasons:
>>> * Previous global FOSS4G events have attracted more people and been more
>>> lucrative in Europe / North America
>>> * Europe/North America could be argued to be less financially risky. Our
>>> one cancelled FOSS4G was in China in 2012.
>>> * FOSS4G (global and regional) events traditionally draw half their
>>> attendance from the local region. Europe and North America both have
>>> large populations with established OSGeo communities.
>>>
>>> I'm in favour of continuing our current 3 way rotation, on the proviso
>>> that there are proven OSGeo communities outside of NA/Europe. By proven,
>>> I'd suggest that we would consider regions which have already
>>> successfully staged a FOSS4G regional event (or similar)
>>> and who can put together a compelling justification that they can
>>> attract comparable attendees and sponsors to Europe/North America.
>>>
>>> Looking at:
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_History
>>> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_History>
>>> I see that there have previously been regional FOSS4G events in:
>>> Argentina
>>> India
>>> Korea
>>> Malaysia
>>> Japan
>>>
>>> So for 2015, I'd suggest that our FOSS4G pre qualification should invite
>>> responses from "rest of the world" and Europe, but we should give a
>>> preference to "rest of world" assuming they can provide a compelling
>>> proposal which is likely to attract similar success
>>> to past European and North American conferences.
>>>
>>> Generalising the rule. Our rotation policy should be:
>>>
>>> * We give a strong preference to a region which hasn't had FOSS4G for 2
>>> years
>>> * We next consider the region which had FOSS4G 2 years ago
>>> * Only as a last resort would we consider a region which had FOSS4G last
>>> year
>>>
>>> Regions are considered as: Europe / North America / Other locations
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Cameron Shorter
>>> Geospatial Solutions Manager
>>> Tel:
>>> +61 (0)2 8570 5050 <tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050>
>>> Mob:
>>> +61 (0)419 142 254 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254>
>>>
>>> Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>>> http://www.lisasoft.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ---------------------------------------+----------------------------------
>>> ----
>>> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
>>> warmerdam at pobox.com <mailto:warmerdam at pobox.com>
>>> light and sound - activate the windows |
>>> http://pobox.com/~warmerdam <http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam>
>>> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Cameron Shorter
>>> Geospatial Solutions Manager
>>> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
>>> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>>>
>>> Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>>> http://www.lisasoft.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference-europe/attachments/20130417/75f393db/attachment.html>