[OSGeo-Conf] 2011 Stage Two

[Jeff McKenna]

Cameron Shorter wrote:
> -0 from me.
> Reason: I don't think I've seen an answer from Denver to the following 
> questions:
> 
> * Are you prepared to share all created material as part of the 
> conference under an Open Licence? This would include the budget as well 
> all fliers etc.
> 
> * Are you prepared to share all created material in source format. Eg, 
> for the budget, can it be provided in Excel format as well as, or 
> instead of PDF.
> 
> I want to see answers to these questions committed to before we select 
> the conference venue, as the value to future conferences will be high, 
> and our experience in 2009 was that we were unable to retrospectively 
> have our PCO open up their documentation for us after we had won the 
> ability to host.
> I will move my vote to +1 after seeing a positive response to the above 
> questions.

Cameron,

I agree with you that these points are important, but as the 
requirements for the Stage One letter of intent were very high level 
(e.g. who is on your LOC? what makes your location compelling?), we must 
wait to ask them these more specific questions in the next stage.  My 
motion was to advance the Denver team into Stage Two, not officially 
award them the hosting.

For example, you could support my motion to advance Denver into the next 
stage, and in that same email begin asking your questions, so they can 
deal with them by the time they submit their full proposal.

Sorry if I seem to come off strong here, I just don't want to hold back 
the Denver team from moving forward.

-jeff