[OSGeo-Conf] Conference policy

Frank Warmerdam warmerdam at pobox.com
Thu Jul 3 18:18:40 EDT 2008

Dave Patton wrote:
> 2)
> Under "Value", drop the word "reasonably". OSGeo, and
> therefore events using the OSGeo name, should be aiming
> higher than 'reasonably good'.


I disagree with your point.  I would not want to rule out a
possible event just because it's value to attendies was only
reasonable instead of much better than reasonably good.

I think evaluation criteria like "Value" are to avoid
besmirching the OSGeo name with something that is clearly
a rip-off - not too ensure that value-to-participants is
optimized ahead of everything else.

Generally speaking I want an event to be a great value,
of course, but failure to achieve that should not rule out
the event being held if it meets our objectives in other

> 4)
> 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?

Board meetings are generally monthly, and anything that has to be
formally approved by the board can therefor have a "step lag" of a
bit more than one month.  I don't personally think we need to set
a timetable, though it behooves us to act promptly when a request is
made.  It might be appropriate to indicate to applicants that a delay
of up to six weeks is possible when making a decision.

Best regards,
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list