[OSGeo-Conf] Analysing the downfall of FOSS4G 2011

Jeff McKenna jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Mon Aug 20 08:00:00 PDT 2012

On 12-08-20 11:48 AM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
> From my experience, the problem with the current process is that it's a rubber-stamp at the Board level -- so in effect the actual decision is made at the committee level with the board being asked to simply approve.
> An improvement could be to have the committee put together a write-up reviewing proposals - perhaps pre-selected criteria to comment on - that the board can use as expert insight before making a decision. In this way the committee can continue to have useful input and influence while leaving the Board to make the actual decision in light of all factors influencing the organization.
> I think it would be worthwhile for the board to also review the 3 year rotation process and policies regarding OSGeo engagement with local events, especially in light of the number of regional events that are popping up. For instance, I'm not sure that the rotation is actually required anymore since the regional events may well be serving the original need this was established for.
> Dave

Hi Dave,

Your ideas fit well with well with the Board (re)defining a Terms of
Reference for the Conference Committee.

That said, I don't see how the Conference Committee would stay alive
through it, but, from what I hear most want all of this to happen at the
Board level from now on anyway.


More information about the Conference_dev mailing list