[OSGeo-Conf] 2012 Final Step: Voting

Paul Ramsey pramsey at cleverelephant.ca
Wed Aug 31 14:36:33 EDT 2011

Well, then:

- I found the Prague proposal demonstrated a grasp of the foss4g
format that was missing in the Beijing proposal.
- I found the depth of the Prague committee, in terms of ability to do
the LOC work necessary to put on the conference more compelling.
- Both the Prague and Hanoi teams indicated they had members who had
attended a past FOSS4G, Beijing did not.

For OSGeo's health, having a LOC that knows the contours and
expectations of the event ahead of time and has demonstrated that
knowledge in their submission is a better bet. OSGeo needs the revenue
from FOSS4G, so taking a conservative, low risk approach is the
direction I prefer.

Sour grapes: I thought the Rome letter demonstrated the most awareness
of event and readiness to host of all the ones submitted. Hope the .it
folks resubmit.



On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Tyler Mitchell <tmitchell at osgeo.org> wrote:
> 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.

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list