[OSGeo-Conf] Re: [Board] Preliminary Survey Results

Sat Sep 24 12:09:27 EDT 2011

My observation is FOSS4G has been focused on osgeo developers - providing a
great opportunity for a wide variety of projects being developed in the
osgeo realm to have some great face: face time and relationship building.
This is reflected in the numbers Peter put out earlier:

46% answered 5 to the question how heavily do you currently use geospatial
open source, remainder split fairly evenly between 1-4.

61% were software developers as main job function, 18% end users, 20%
managers

I’ve heard FOSS4G started as a ‘gathering of the tribes’, so this makes
sense.

Talk of possibly having a FOSS4G in Beijing next year and an osgeo
conference in North America could create an opportunity to expand the
audience. FOSS4G international could stay developer focused and the osgeo N.
America conference could be focused on connecting with a broader audience
that is more user focused. It could be more of a showcase of the great
options in the osgeo realm and how to integrate them into one's
organization/classroom/etc, with presentations geared towards users in
education, government, the private sector, etc., as well as a chance for
developers to connect with each other and be available to interact with
general users. This could also be an attractive type of event for open
source consulting businesses to showcase to the users/managers how they can
help make integration of FOSS happen easily in the exhibitor area.

Broadening the target market beyond a focus on developers provides an
opportunity to increase the number of conference attendees, users, and
potential future sponsors. From my read about the OSGEO foundation this
seems like it could reasonably fit under OSGEO's purview:  "OSGeo also
serves as an outreach and advocacy organization for the open source
geospatial community" - http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/about.html

If this seems like an idea worth exploring I'd be willing to work with
whoever else is interested to help think through what this may look like and
test its viability, possibly by using surveys sent out through the
education, government, and business realms.

-Lisa Sweeney

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Mark Lucas <mlucas17 at mac.com> wrote:

> Chris,
>
> Good point, but I'd expect that we could rubber stamp the Denver conference
> and match or exceed this year's number.  Colorado is a geospatial center for
> the US.  I think the break even target for this year was somewhere around
> 500, so it would be prudent to target that or slightly higher.  As
> government budgets get whacked I'm expecting a lot more interest from
> government agencies.  In any case, it was a very successful conference and
> this years attendees will help spread the word.
>
> Mark
>
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 7:13 AM, christopher.schmidt at nokia.com wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 10:37 PM, ext Mark Lucas wrote:
>
> Yep, and that is just returning attendees.  67% were new attendees for
> 2011.  So it would seem we could easily duplicate the 900 attendees at this
> years conference.
>
>
> I don't think it works like that.
>
> FOSS4G was in the US for the first time in a long time; the space itself
> has changed
> drastically since 2004 (or even 2007) when it was last practical to attend
> the conf. for a lot of people.
>
> I think that the new market for attendees was huge this year, but I don't
> think it's fair to extrapolate that it will *always* be that big;
> I think that imagining the market/space will grow by as much between
> 2011->2012 as it did between 2007 and 2011 is a pretty big
> expectation.
>
> I would start with mpg's numbers and go up slightly, unless you believe
> there
> is somehow a very large untapped potential that Denver did not address;
> I think that imagining a 25% growth of new attendees is reasonable, but
> expecting *two thirds* new attendees again would be excessive.
>
> -- Chris
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>
>
> For “likely to attend a FOSS4G in NorAmer next year” (#19), the responses
> were
>
>
> 1: 10%
>
> 2: 10%
>
> 3: 25%
>
> 4: 20%
>
> 5: 35%
>
>
> Let us assign probabilities to the 1-5 scale like this:
>
>
> 1: 0% (will not attend)
>
> 2: 20% chance of attending
>
> 3: 40%
>
> 4: 60%
>
> 5: 80%
>
>
> Assume 900 attendees at this conference.  Then, we can project the
> attendance at the postulated local NorAmer conference to be
>
>
> .10(900) * 0 + .10(900) * .20 + .25(900) * .40 + .20(900) * .60 + .35(900)
> * .80
>
> = 0 + 18 + 90 + 108 + 252
>
> = 468
>
>
> Check my math, but we could be looking at a ~500 person gig.
>
>
> -mpg
>
>
>
>
> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org]
> On Behalf Of Peter Batty
>
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:02 PM
>
> To: foss4g2011-private; board at lists.osgeo.org; conference
>
> Subject: [Board] Fwd: Preliminary Survey Results
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> Thought I would share a few preliminary results from the post-FOSS4G
> survey. As James says below, we'll get the data in a better form for
> analysis once we close the survey. But we got responses from 1/3 of
> attendees within 24 hours, which is great!
>
>
> A few things I'd highlight:
>
>
> 67% of attendees were at their first FOSS4G
>
> 46% answered 5 to the question how heavily do you currently use geospatial
> open source, remainder split fairly evenly between 1-4.
>
> 61% were software developers as main job function, 18% end users, 20%
> managers
>
> Overall rating of FOSS4G was 4.31 on a scale of 1-5, which is impressive!
>
> Highest ranked function was the Wynkoop reception at 4.55.
>
> Quality of presentations was ranked at 4.07.
>
> 72% answered 1 or 2 on how likely they are to be in Beijing, 14% answered 4
> or 5.
>
> 57% answered 4 or 5 on attending a "local FOSS4G" if there was one in North
> America next year.
>
> Of various possible options proposed for future FOSS4Gs, the one involving
> an annual local conference in North America was the highest rated by some
> margin (though obviously a sample skewed towards North Americans).
>
>
> We need the more detailed spreadsheet to get scores and comments for
> individual workshops, I think that will be another important thing to look
> at in planning for next year.
>
>
> Lots of interesting stuff in the comments too that we can use to make
> future events better.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>    Peter.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> From: James Sakamoto <jsakamoto at gita.org>
>
> Date: Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:36 PM
>
> Subject: Preliminary Survey Results
>
> To: Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com>
>
> Cc: Bob Samborski <bsamborski at gita.org>, Libby Hanna <lhanna at gita.org>,
> Patricia Essex <pessex at gita.org>
>
>
>
> Hi Pete,
>
>
> Thought we would share the preliminary survey results.  It is still very
> early but, so far, you almost have 300 (285) responses which would be nearly
> 33%!!!  That is a tremendous response.  Generally we get about 10-15%.
>
>
> This is just the summarized PDF synopsis.  When the survey closes we should
> be able to provide you with an Excel formatted report that you can
> manipulate as you please.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> James
>
>
> James Sakamoto
>
> Senior Education Coordinator
>
> GITA
>
> 14456 East Evans Ave
>
> Aurora, CO 80014
>
> (720) 496-0484
>
> jsakamoto at gita.org
>
>
> October 24-26, GIS for Oil & Gas Pipeline Conference, Houston, TX
> www.gita.org/oilgas
>
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Board mailing list
>
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Board mailing list
>
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20110924/8b942231/attachment.html