[OSGeo-Conf] Analysing the downfall of FOSS4G 2011
jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Thu Aug 16 14:24:29 PDT 2012
As usual I agree 100% with all your points. I wonder if we need to make
a "Conference Committee reboot 2012" wiki page with some ideas and
potential members/structure/roles listed and plans, and then propose
this the Board? We could even have a call for nominations/process for
In other words: I feel strongly that the conference committee is very
important and should be relied upon heavily for the annual FOSS4G event.
On 12-08-16 5:59 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> I think you are spot on regarding the importance of conferences (and
> FOSS4G in particular) to OSGeo, and as such I think you are right that
> the board does need to give conferences much of its attention.
> However, I think that it would be better to suggest a slightly different
> management structure.
> Rather than moving conference activities to the board, I'd suggest that
> board members should take a more active role in the conference committee.
> There are a few people who are not on the board now, but who I would
> strongly welcome participating in a conference committee, due to their
> depth of experience with foss4g conferences and wise advise. (Hello
> PaulR). By watering down the importance of the conference committee, I'd
> expect to see less activity on its lists, and then less volunteers
> stepping up to help. And of all places, I think the conference committee
> is the place we most need more volunteers.
> This should be matched by documenting the key decision criteria that we
> think is important for a foss4g conference, and following through on
> these criteria. (In particular, documenting such criteria as under what
> conditions should the conference committee 1. award a conference 2. act
> as a financial backstop 3. cancel a conference)
> The documentation should be the start of a FOSS4G Cookbook, and I intend
> to give it some of my attention in the near future.
More information about the Conference_dev