[OSGeo-Conf] 2012 Final Step: Voting

[Paul Ramsey]

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.

Best,

Paul

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.