[OSGeo-Conf] Analysing the downfall of FOSS4G 2011

Jeff McKenna jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Thu Aug 16 13:25:07 PDT 2012

Hi David,

Here is what is running through my mind: relying on the Board to make
the FOSS4G hosting decision currently means 8 people would decide (and
75% of them are NorthAmericans); I've always tried to make sure that the
Conference Committee is global (usually 50% NorthAmerican or less) and
we move the FOSS4G event around the world; Charter membership is
extremely global (39% NorthAmerican).

It is unfortunate that we may have to move all this conference-dev stuff
to the Board I believe (even though I straddle both sides of this).  But
I cannot argue with Dave's, your's, or Paul's statements, you all make
great points.


On 12-08-16 5:10 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
> But whether it is a revenue generator or a liability is a fine line. It
> isn't just the potential for revenue that has to be watched, but also
> the potential liability. I trust that a much smaller group will be able
> to weigh all those issues much more than feeling that each and every
> Charter Member will have looked at all the budget sheets and plans and
> LOC experience rather than just voting for the place they think would be
> interesting to go to. I trust that it is the Board that who is
> ultimately responsible for these things.
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Jeff McKenna
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>
> wrote:
>     Hi Paul,
>     It all comes down to the basic purpose of the FOSS4G event.  Is it a
>     revenue generator that in fact is the major source of revenue for OSGeo?
>      Then for sure, I can see your points.  Is it to promote Open Source
>     geospatial around the world?  Then there is no doubt in my mind Charter
>     members should be involved in this decision.
>     -jeff
>     On 12-08-16 4:45 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>     > Jeff,
>     > Your suggestion moves in the opposite direction Dave is proposing.
>     > Dave says the problem is that the conf. committee is relatively
>     > removed from the strategic concerns of the foundation (like financial
>     > issues) and that the board should take a stronger hand. Handing the
>     > decision to the charter membership moves the decision to a population
>     > even further removed from those issues than the conf. committee.
>     > P.
>     _______________________________________________
>     Conference_dev mailing list
>     Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list