[OSGeo-Conf] 2011 Discussion

[Paul Ramsey]

I am finding it hard to vote :) The thing about an annual
international conference, even one constrained to a EUR/NA/OTH
pattern, is that for people restricted in their travel approvals it is
effectively a tri-annual event. (I remember being put out when the
decision to put 2006 in Lausanne (and in fall rather than spring)
meant a 30 month delay between North American events. It's a good
thing I'm older and mellower now, or the 48 month gap between the 2007
event and the (as yet still not for sure in NA) 2011 event would drive
me over the edge.

Allow me to channel the channel: "So hold your own regional event!"
My response: "Be careful what you wish for."

I vote for [B], if OSGeo doesn't take on the regional events, someone
else will, and it won't be good for OSGeo or FOSS4G.

P.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Claude Philipona
<claude.philipona at camptocamp.com> wrote:
> I vote for [A].
>
> I think we shjould maintain an international conference every year.
> Two years is too long considering the technology life cycle.
>
> I'm also ok with the comments from Gavin.
>
> Claude
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 19:31, Jeff McKenna
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>> OSGeo Conference Committee members,
>>
>> I haven't seen any other discussions, or modifications to the 2011 Wiki
>> page, since I suggested that we hold a vote to determine what changes (if
>> any) are required for 2011.  So I will continue on with the plan.
>>
>> Please vote on one of the 4 options for 2011, as outlined on the 2011 Wiki
>> page[1]:
>>
>>  A. Modified Status Quo
>>  B. Two Track Strategy
>>  C. Both Annual and Regional Events in Same Year
>>  D. No changes to the Existing Process
>>
>> If the successful option requires changes to the FOSS4G hosting process, the
>> changes will be brought to the OSGeo Board for approval.  Voting can occur
>> for one week, until the end of the 21st.
>>
>> For those wondering who is currently on the OSGeo Conference Committee,
>> please see the associated Wiki page[2].
>>
>> I'll start with posting my vote:
>>
>>  B. Two Track Strategy
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Reboot_2011
>> [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee
>>
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>>
>>> OSGeo Conference Committee members,
>>>
>>> I'd like to pick this discussion up again.
>>>
>>> Thank you Paul for bringing this issue up.  I also feel that change is
>>> needed in our process, for 2011.
>>>
>>> I have modified Paul's initial 2011 page by adding the existing
>>> observations that were made on this mailing list
>>> (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Reboot_2011), and I now ask all OSGeo
>>> conference committee members to give it a good read and place your thoughts
>>> on that page, and make changes to the options wherever necessary.
>>>
>>> After some discussion on this issue (giving a week or so for this), I
>>> would like to call a vote on modifying the 2011 process, starting on the
>>> 14th of this month.   That should give the committee some time to come up
>>> with some solid options for 2011.  Voting will begin on the 14th, and the
>>> voting period will close on the 21st.  The results of the vote will be
>>> brought to the OSGeo board for approval.
>>>
>>> I personally am really proud of what the FOSS4G event has accomplished
>>> around the world, and am looking forward to improving this event process for
>>> the future years.
>>>
>>> -jeff
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> 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
>