[OSGeo-Conf] 2012 Final Step: Voting

[Tyler Mitchell]

Arnulf and Cameron,

As somewhat of a bystander I'm glad to see that there is at least some kind
of discussion happening in public.  I'm not suggesting it all should be though.
I assume it happens extensively in private each year so that all the voters 
can debate and discuss the merits, but it's a good reminder to know it 
happens.  Especially for those who bid, to know that it wasn't just a flip 
of a coin. Though no one is suggesting that, it is more encouraging to 
know the individual reasons.

>> 
>> The advantage of having such a cycle, and sticking to it, is that we
>> will find it much easier in planning and marketing our conferences.
> To me the marketing aspect is not the primary motivation. 

For me the planning aspect is important.  As I talk to others who really
want to host a "better" event, they need (and want) to plan ahead to make
it happen.

I'm interested in seeing how OSGeo can help encourage more regional
events but since they are highly dependent on local chapters,
in many ways, they don't need the kind of higher level support that is put
toward the international FOSS4G event.  I see a good need for a "one and only
event" into the future, though if it can spawn off others, then I hope we can
discuss how to make that happen.  

My two bits,
Tyler


On 2011-08-30, at 3:51 PM, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:

> Cameron,
> this is probably not a good idea because the vote which was supposed to
> be private and is now semi public.
> 
> To me the marketing aspect is not the primary motivation. A great
> conference is what we want. Additionally I would like to get rid of the
> "One and Only Annual FOSS4G" aspect anyway. We are way beyond this.
> There are already half a dozen semi local FOSS4G events every year and
> hopefully there will be more each year.
> 
> So please simply choose for the better event.
> 
> Thanks,
> Arnulf.
> 
> On 08/30/2011 10:30 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> Jeff, I realise my vote is supposed to be private, but wanted to
>> publicly explain my reasons for voting (and in particular, encourage
>> Prague to resubmit next year).
>> 
>> The foss4g conference committee had previously noted our preference for
>> a 3 year cycle for venue selection:
>> * Europe
>> * America
>> * Rest of world
>> * Europe
>> * ...
>> 
>> The advantage of having such a cycle, and sticking to it, is that we
>> will find it much easier in planning and marketing our conferences.
>> As has been said in Denver, "This is an excellent conference, and it
>> won't be in the US for another 3 years".
>> It will also open an opportunity for off-year conferences, for areas
>> that know that they will not get foss4g for another 2 years, they will
>> be able to focus on creating off year conferences, or creating Open
>> Source streams in other Geospatial conferences.
>> 
>> I did find that Prague presented an excellent offering, and as such it
>> will influence my vote for a European city next year. (My message to
>> Prague is please submit again next year). Beijing has put in an
>> excellent bid as well, but my primary motivation in voting is to stick
>> to our 3 year cycle. So I'm +1 for Beijing.
>> 
>> On 30/08/2011 6:02 AM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>> Thank you to both teams for answering the OSGeo Conference Committee's
>>> questions regarding the proposals.
>>> 
>>> I would ask that all OSGeo Conference Committee members email me their
>>> selection privately for 2012: "Beijing" or "Prague" - please email me
>>> before the end of your Thursday (Sept 1st) day.  If there is a
>>> majority in the voting results, we'll announce the winner on Friday. 
>>> Hopefully this still gives the winner some time to prepare a short
>>> 'invitation' presentation for the 10 minute slot in the closing
>>> plenary in Denver on September 16th (see Day 5: 3:30pm-3:40pm
>>> http://2011.foss4g.org/program/session-schedule).
>>> 
>>> Background info:
>>> 
>>> - proposals: http://www.osgeo.org/conference/rfp
>>> 
>>> - OSGeo Committee Members:
>>> 
>>>    Thierry Badard
>>>    Arnulf Christl
>>>    Gavin Fleming
>>>    Steve Lime
>>>    Dave McIlhagga
>>>    Helena Mitasova
>>>    Markus Neteler
>>>    Claude Philipona
>>>    Venkatesh Raghavan
>>>    Paul Ramsey
>>>    Cameron Shorter
>>>    Frank Warmerdam
>>>    Lorenzo Becchi
>>>    Jeff McKenna
>>> 
>>>    (I've already discussed with Peter Batty about his involvement in
>>> this committee after Denver)
>>> 
>>> Thanks everyone, this is exciting!
>>> 
>>> -jeff
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Exploring Space, Time and Mind
> http://arnulf.us
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev