[OSGeo-Conf] Conference policy

Dave Patton davep at confluence.org
Tue Jul 1 16:58:57 EDT 2008

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Jeff McKenna
<jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>  I now call ALL conference committee members to vote FOR or AGAINST this policy.
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Official_OSGeo_Conference_Policy

I don't have a vote, but here are my comments:
Change the title from "Official OSGeo Conference Policy"
to "Official OSGeo Event Policy".
"event" is used elsewhere in the policy, and the policy
applies to more than just conferences. Also change other
related wordings.
Under "Value", drop the word "reasonably". OSGeo, and
therefore events using the OSGeo name, should be aiming
higher than 'reasonably good'.
Under "Acceptance", it's not clear if items 1 and 2 are
sequential, or can happen at the same time, and, if they
can happen at the same time, shouldn't the same plan
be distributed to both lists? Having "the formal plan" be
only sent to the Conference Committee mailing list seems
to imply that the 'general OSGeo public' don't get to see
"all the details". I do see the potential value to a preliminary
discussion about an event on the -discuss list, but once the
event organizer develops a specific plan, wouldn't it be of
value to the Conf Comm. to see the input of the -discuss
list in reaction to that plan?
A natural question from someone proposing an event would
be "how long does the approval process take?", therefore
should the Acceptance section contain some timetable?
For example, that once an event organizer does E.2,
they will receive a decision from OSGeo within 1 month?

Dave Patton
CIS Canadian Information Systems
Victoria, B.C.

Degree Confluence Project:
Canadian Coordinator
Technical Coordinator

OSGeo FOSS4G2007 conference:
Workshop Committee Chair
Conference Committee member

Personal website:
Maps, GPS, etc.

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list