[OSGeo-Conf] 2011 Discussion

Dave McIlhagga dmcilhagga at dmsolutions.ca
Thu Apr 16 10:17:00 EDT 2009


Dave,

The problem I see with this is it leaves the process still "grey" in  
terms of goals for OSGeo. I really think you're going to get much  
stronger bids to host FOSS4G if everyone is clear on what the target  
region is each year. In effect, knowing the rotation gives folks in  
each region 3 years to plan for making a bid + they have the knowledge  
that they will only be competing with their own region to host the  
event.

This again encourages stronger bids.

Finally -- I think you'll get much stronger local attendance if the  
region is aware that FOSS4G will only be in say North America or  
Europe every 3 years.

The only out you need is that in the event that you get 0 bids, or  
bids of low quality -- the committee has the option to open up to the  
world to host. I suspect the chance of this happening would in fact be  
quite rare.

Dave




On 16-Apr-09, at 9:54 AM, Dave Patton wrote:

> On 2009/04/16 6:17 AM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
>> +1 for Option A.
>> I also think we've reached a stage where explicit rotation (North  
>> America, Europe, Other) would be very helpful in terms of  
>> soliciting higher quality bids and encouraging regional events  
>> since folks on the ground will know when the rotation will come to  
>> their part of the world every 3 years.
>> Perhaps a way to do this is make the LOI stage explicitly for the  
>> target region. If there are no LOIs from the region, or none deemed  
>> of sufficient quality, then a second LOI round could be opened up  
>> to the rest of the world? This would not completely tie our hands  
>> in the event no one within the region of interest is able to put  
>> together a satisfactory bid.
>
> You could, as part of making the selection process
> more transparent, state up front (in the Expression of
> Interest and RFP) a "scoring system" that will, in part,
> be used by the conference committee in any selection
> process.
>
> For example, each person with a vote assigns a value
> of from 1 to 5 for each 'category' - there might be
> 'categories' for each element of the EOI/RFP, and you
> can even have categories for less tangible things,
> such as "overall impression".
>
> Rather than having to do a 2-stage approach to deal
> with interest, or lack thereof, from "the current
> year's target region", you can have one of the
> 'categories' be "EOI/RFP is from the preferred
> geographic region".
>
> 'Categories' can also have a 'weight', so you could
> apply sufficient 'weight' to the "EOI/RFP is from the
> preferred geographic region" 'category' so that
> submissions that score well in this 'category' will
> 'rise to the top', but at the same time have the
> 'weight' such that high-quality bids from other
> regions would also 'rise to the top'.
>
> A further statement in the bid process that "when two
> or more bids are received that are deemed to be of
> comparable quality, part of the committee's decision
> process will rely on favoring any bids that are from
> the 'target region'" makes it clear why good bids
> from North America and Europe might be turned down
> in a year when the preference is to hold the
> conference in another part of the world.
>
> -- 
> Dave Patton
> CIS Canadian Information Systems
> Victoria, B.C.
>
> Degree Confluence Project:
> Canadian Coordinator
> Technical Coordinator
> http://www.confluence.org/
>
> Personal website:
> Maps, GPS, etc.
> http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev



More information about the Conference_dev mailing list