[OSGeo-Conf] Re: Selecting a perpetual FOSS4G PCO?

[Daniel Ames]

Tyler and Cameron, I suggest you form a "blue ribbon panel" of the
conference chairs from each of the past conferences and ask them to study
this issue and make a recommendation.

- Dan
--------
Daniel P. Ames Ph.D.
Idaho State University Dept. of Geosciences
dan.ames at isu.edu
--------
Sent from my Droid
On Aug 19, 2011 3:11 PM, "Tyler Mitchell" <tmitchell at osgeo.org> wrote:
>
>> Jeff, Arnulf and myself have been approached by an international
consortium of Professional Conference Organisors (PCOs), offering to take
over the hosting of FOSS4G around the world for us.
>
> Hi Cameron,
>
> I have also been approached, informally, by some of our past organisers
who are plugged into these kinds of international consortiums and can work
with others around the globe on our behalf - e.g. Sea to Sky who ran FOSS4G
2007 was interested. GITA from this year would be interested as well. I
assume 2008 Tour Hosts, etc. would be too. I like the idea of having a
dedicated PCO. It would make a serious change to the way bids are prepared
each year, which would need to be considered, but also think it would help
lower the barrier to LOCs that may be intimidated.
>
>> I believe that we have reached the point with FOSS4G that it would make
sense to have a paid staff role, or a partner organisation, dedicated to
managing the hosting of FOSS4G, this providing continuity of knowledge about
FOSS4G from city to city.
>
> It would be great to hear about what isn't working well, beyond just the
lessons learned we capture on the wiki. We know that, for example, it takes
PCO (companies) a while to get up to speed with our way of running things -
e.g. community voting for presentations, specific timelines, system
requirements. Much of which is smoother if they ran it a second time.
>
> I wonder how this would shake out financially - annual retainer needed,
bridge funding throughout the year required? How do we make it profitable
yet easy to run and without making major impact on your current budget. Did
you have any gut feel on that side of it?
>
>> This would help reduce the very high learning curve that each LOC faces
when running FOSS4G, and will allow us to set up websites and infrastructure
which is passed on.
>
>
> The approach so far has been that OSGeo Board has a rep on the LOC, OSGeo
conference committee chair is on the LOC and OSGeo staffer is on the LOC. It
would be worth reviewing how well this is working at the moment so we can
see where the holes are. These roles have been adapted over the years to
help pass on that knowledge and continuity that you mention, so I think it's
a good place to start. e.g. are there areas that these roles are not
covering off well enough that a PCO might do better; are there some
"business systems" steps for FOSS4G planning that need to be documented to
improve things, etc?
>
> Count me in for further discussions on both aspects!
>
> Thanks for bringing it up - it's been on my mind too.
>
> Tyler_______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20110819/5e797843/attachment.html