[OSGeo-Conf] Conf for 2008

Tue Mar 27 11:24:06 EDT 2007

Tim makes a good point about trying to attract hardware sponsors. There is
an interesting opportunity here since there is less of a conflict of
interests in having for example, Leica or Trimble sponsor the conference
than, say, ESRI - since most (if not all?) of the osgeo projects probably
have some need for or connection to GPS and other hardware.  I know that the
MapWindow community probably has 20 different developers working on GPS
related projects... - Dan

On 3/26/07, Tim Bowden <tim.bowden at westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> Well, I've taken Paul's advice and I'm here to agitate ;-)
>
> After looking over the list archives and wiki material, I've a few
> thoughts to offer.  Before I go on though, a disclaimer:  My open source
> conf experience is limited to being on the periphery or sidelines of a
> number of lca's- linux.conf.au and my observations are coloured
> accordingly (and yes, that is how you spell coloured!).
>
> Background: lca is one of the worlds best technical linux/open source
> conferences that rotates around aust each year.  It's entirely volunteer
> run, has a strong developer focus and has been growing at an amazing
> rate every year since 1999 when it was first held.  This year it capped
> numbers at 800 with a budget of abt AU$1m.  That's around US$800,000.
> The speaker travel budget this year was equivalent to the entire budget
> for the first conf.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we adopt the
> model Linux Aust is using; There are some significant differences
> between the two communities, but I do think there are some lessons
> learnt at lca that we can take advantage of.
>
> Ghosts of lca's past:  Being a rotating conf with new people running
> things every year, the wheel was being re-invented too many times.  LA
> put in place a process to pass on learnt knowledge.  It has proved very
> valuable.  Key organisers from the previous year are flown to the next
> location for a meeting with the next organisers and LA committee to pass
> on their experiences, help solve problems and raise issues that may not
> have been considered.  Given that in this instance all the travel is
> domestic (apart from when Linux Australia held the conf in NZ last year)
> the costs are reasonable. They would be much greater for OSGeo to do the
> same but perhaps OSGeo could find some way of formalising the transfer
> of knowledge from one team to the next.
>
> Equipment:  LA is starting to build up a cache of equipment that can be
> rotated around conferences.  AV recording sets, wireless access points
> etc.  In the long run, it saves money and is one less problem for local
> teams to deal with.  Processes need to be put in place to keep track of
> it all and so on, but it looks like it is working so far.  It's taken a
> few years to get to this point though.
>
> Cost:  LA strives to keep the conf as cost friendly as possible.  All
> work is done by volunteers (though this does result in a high burnout
> rate- It takes some years of recovery before anyone is willing to have
> another go at it).  The venue is always a local uni that offers
> sponsorship in the form of cheap facilities and has a keen community of
> CS students that get involved.  This year cost was $99 for students,
> $300 for hobbyists and $690 for professional delegates (if your boss was
> paying or you were 'on the FOSS gravy train', you were considered a
> professional delegate).  The rest of the costs were covered by
> sponsorship.
>
> Now that the conf is well established, this is not too hard to do.
> Sponsors line up for the chance; IBM, HP, Google etc.  As one local
> luminary said in the early days, The sponsors need lca more than lca
> needs the sponsors.  Maybe that's got something to do with the calibre
> of the delegates.  Look at it this way, if the OSGeo conf is a developer
> rich environment, with the cream of the open source GeoFOSS community
> there, do you really thing companies like google are not interested in
> being associated?  Do you really think they are uninterested in paying
> to be involved in an event attracting some of the best open source
> geospatial developers in the world?  Have we approached google about
> sponsorship?
>
> Potential sponsors know that many of the hardware and software system
> purchasing decisions are made or strongly influenced by the tech
> community at the conf.  It's also a great way to pick up key staff.  In
> the case of LA and linux, it's a cool tech to be associated with.  To
> what extent does OSGeo and GeoFOSS in general have this type of buzz
> about it?  Maybe not quite as much as linux, but I don't think it should
> be discounted.  This 'reputation buzz' is growing and is a valuable
> asset for the long term.  Lets not sell ourselves too cheaply to
> sponsors.  I suspect if sponsors always got their way, everything would
> end up a trade show and we would all be the worse off for it.
>
> As far as the balance between suits/developers/hobbyists/students goes,
> I think we are best served by keeping it as 'community' as possible; To
> me that means having a focus that is developer friendly.  If the
> developers aren't interested in coming, then either the rest will fade
> away or it will become just another trade show.  If the developers are
> there, the rest will want to tag along anyway.  Keep the event
> accessible to students; in a few years they will be the professional
> delegates we want actively involved.  To me this is an opportunity to
> serve /our/ needs, rather than a sales pitch to the rest of the world
> (though that will be an incidental benefit).
>
> Lead time:  Experience with lca has shown that it takes a local user
> group about two years to get to the point where they can make a
> successful bid to hold the conf.  In part this might be because every
> conf gets better, but it takes a lot of volunteer manpower and learning
> be in a position to make a go of it.  The lead time once the successful
> bidding team has been chosen has been extended to 18 months from 12
> months.  There is just too much to do for a conf of that size to be
> organised by volunteers in 12 months.  LA has looked at the option of
> using a professional conf organiser, but has rejected it several times
> because it would drive up costs and change the character of the conf
> away from being a grassroots event.  I don't know if that's so, but it's
> the decision that has been made several times.
>
> Website:  Could conf.osgeo.org be a permanent pointer to the current or
> immediate past conf?  It provides a permanent point of reference for the
> conf.
>
> We don't have the same manpower available as the linux community and our
> needs are not always the same; we're a lot smaller in numbers so we
> certainly can't do things the same way.  If we rely on volunteer efforts
> only, we may be limiting ourselves too much, but I think we should still
> be trying to maximise that avenue.  The more we can contain costs, the
> more community involvement we will have.  At the end of the day, if we
> loose community, we loose everything, because community is the lifeblood
> of open source.
>
> FWIW, that's my take on things.  It's probably different to what many
> others are thinking, but that's what makes an interesting community.
> Now who is interested in hosting foss4g2008?  ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Tim Bowden
>
> PS, I just got this feedback from Michael Davies of LA, who has been
> involved in the LA ghosts program.
>
> On 27/03/07, Tim Bowden <tim.bowden at westnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm looking at giving some input to the conf committee of the Open
> > Source Geospatial Foundation, and I'd like to get some feedback on the
> > lca ghosts program.  Specifically, how beneficial has it been and what
> > sort of costs (ballpark) has it involved?
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> The "linux.conf.au Ghosts of Conference Past" program has been in
> place for a while now, and it serves a number of purposes:
>
> a) provides a debrief opportunity for last conference's team to tell
> LA and next year's conference organisers things they need to be aware
> of, do both a physical and virtual handover, including sponsorship
> arrangements etc etc etc;
>
> b) provides an opportunity for the next conference to bounce ideas off
> Linux Australia and previous conference organisers, to validate their
> thinking;
>
> c) provides continuity for LCA by allowing input into the planning of
> the next conference by those who have been there and have sweated
> blood before (to maintain the flavour of the conference);
>
> d) provides an avenue for Linux Australia to audit where the next
> conference's planning is at, and what intervention (if any) it needs
> to make to ensure the next conference rocks (especially financially
> since LA "underwrites" the conference);
>
> e) allows support structures to be put in place to support the
> organising committee of the next conference.
>
> As someone who has benefited from "ghosts" and has also been involved
> in supporting LCA in this capacity over the past 4 years, I think it's
> very beneficial to a roaming conference like LCA with a different
> organising committee every year.
>
> Cost wise, we're looking at domestic airfares and accommodation for
> approx 6 people over a weekend.  I think it's a small investment
> considering the size of the budget for LCA these days.
>
> Hope this helps,
> --
> Michael Davies           "Do what you think is interesting, do somthing
> that
> michael at the-davies.net    you think is fun and worthwhile, because
> otherwise
> http://michaeldavies.org  you won't do it well anyway." -- Brian
> Kernighan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/conference_dev/attachments/20070327/c3a85c50/attachment-0001.html