[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] FOSS4G rotation
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Sat Apr 20 14:24:56 PDT 2013
Barend,
Maybe a better way of saying this is that:
Cities will continue to bid for the global conference as has been done
to date. In selecting candidate cities, cities/regions which have
successfully held regional conferences will be considered favourably.
On 20/04/13 20:41, b.j.kobben at utwente.nl wrote:
> Although I like the idea of having a different regional conference
> promoted to the "main" one eachyear, this would imply that regional
> one changes in that year from local-language to english-language. This
> would diminish the attractiveness for "locals"in some cases
> (specifically Japanand South America)...
>
> Barend
> *
> on *Friday, April 19, 2013 23:00, Cameron Shorter
> [cameron.shorter at gmail.com] wrote:
>
> From my assessment:
>
> We know from FOSS4G metrics that:
> * There are ~ 200 to 300 people who will travel to a global foss4g
> event, anywhere in the world.
> * However, the majority of foss4g delegates are local or regional, in
> the case of North America, in the order of 500+, and these 500 won't
> travel to Europe, or Australia, or ... to see FOSS4G. Metrics are
> similar for the rest of the world.
> * There is a proven demand for annual regional FOSS4G events. A global
> FOSS4G event would reach 1/3 or less of potential FOSS4G attendees
> which multiple regional conferences could reach.
> * So if our primary goal is outreach to as many people as possible,
> then we are best served by multiple regional FOSS4G events.
> * The price we pay for this increased OSGeo market, is increased
> marketing costs (in that vendors and delegates need to consider
> travelling to multiple events).
> * The Open Source business model favours local businesses who can
> provide local, personalised services. As such, I think that it is in
> the interests of most OSGeo vendors to focus on regional events, where
> they can reach more targeted customers.
> * And for the 300 odd people wishing to par-take in the "annual
> gathering of the tribes", we will delegate one of the regional
> conferences to be the global foss4g conference for the year.
>
> Hence, my vote is that we continue to have regional conferences every
> year, with one of these regional conferences being given the extra
> honour of being called the global conference.
>
> On 19/04/2013 12:54 PM, Daniel Kastl wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com
>> <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> When we bid we were concerned about regional events impacting
>> attendance at the big one inn Nottingham this year.
>>
>> this year we have a NA and CEE event as well as FOSS4G. Everyone
>> has reassured us that they have little or no impact, I am not so
>> confident in a time of economic pressure but only time will tell.
>>
>> It is difficult to be precise about cannibalisation by regional
>> events unless we survey the delegates at these two regional
>> events and ask them whether they plan to also attend Nottingham
>> and if not whether they would have considered Nottingham if there
>> had not been a regional event. Is that worth doing?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding regional events I would make a difference between events
>> that are mainly in English language or some other language.
>> For example the German FOSSGIS or the Japanese FOSS4G wouldn't really
>> attract an audience, that doesn't speak German or Japanese. Same for
>> regional events in Spanish or French. These local events are
>> important, because lot of people prefer to hear (or give)
>> presentations in their native language.
>> A big regional event such as FOSS4G NA though might have an impact
>> though.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17 Apr 2013, at 00:06, Cameron Shorter
>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to hear thoughts from people who organise FOSS4G
>>> regional events about the two year global / regional / global
>>> rotation.
>>>
>>> In particular, would large regional conferences such as
>>> FOSS4G-NA or FOSS4G-EU or FOSS4G-CEE be interested in only
>>> holding events every second year?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16/04/2013 9:46 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>>>> I think Barend's suggestion of a two year scheme (regional in
>>>> year X, global in year Y) deserves some more discussion /
>>>> attention.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I can see the benefits of this scheme (no big
>>>> competition from large regional conferences in the global year).
>>>>
>>>> Also, does OsGeo currently get money out of the big regional
>>>> conferences (such as FOSS4G-CEE and FOSS4G-NA)?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Bart
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bart van den Eijnden
>>>> OSGIS - http://osgis.nl <http://osgis.nl/>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 11:34 AM, b.j.kobben at utwente.nl
>>>> <mailto:b.j.kobben at utwente.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hia ll,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not a board member nor a conference committee member, but
>>>>> I feel an
>>>>> urgent need to give my opinion here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I grow uncomfortable by some of the trends that seem to
>>>>> "logically follow"
>>>>> (note the quotes, and yes I am exaggerating on purpose) from this
>>>>> discussion:
>>>>> 1)- FOSS4G events are there to make money
>>>>> 2)- non NA/Europe events don't make (enough) money
>>>>> 3)- non NA/Europe events get badly organized (see Beijng)
>>>>>
>>>>> Proposition 1 already makes me feel itchy. How can you
>>>>> 'charge' FOSS4G
>>>>> main event organizers with being a cash cow ("expecting a $50K
>>>>> profit") if
>>>>> at the same time encouraging (allowing?) other events to be
>>>>> organised that
>>>>> almost certainly will cannabilise the main event (Foss4G-NA,
>>>>> FOSS4g CEE)
>>>>> on which events you put no obligation to make money? I think
>>>>> we need a
>>>>> two-year cycle: one year the main conference and other years
>>>>> regional ones
>>>>> (i.e. ones actively supported by OSGEO "central", what the
>>>>> regional
>>>>> chapters do on their own is their own responsibility).
>>>>>
>>>>> Proposition 2 is touching a nerve because I work at an
>>>>> institute that is
>>>>> about capacity building for lesser developed countries. I
>>>>> think part of
>>>>> OSGEO is promoting the use of FOSS, and bringing knowledge and
>>>>> experience
>>>>> and enthousiasm about that to the places in the world that
>>>>> would profit
>>>>> most from it is a good cause that is worth doing even if it
>>>>> brings you
>>>>> less or no money. By all means subsidize the LDC meetings with
>>>>> profits
>>>>> from the Europe/NA ones. Call me a specialist, but I prefer some
>>>>> solidarity in this...
>>>>>
>>>>> Proposition 3 is plain not true. The South Africa FOSS4G was
>>>>> excellent in
>>>>> my opinion, the Beijng one failed because of insufficient control
>>>>> mechanisms (either in place or just not followed up on) to
>>>>> check on a
>>>>> local organisation that chooses to do its own thing completely
>>>>> independent
>>>>> of 'OSGEO central'. Could have happened with self-centered
>>>>> stubborn Dutch
>>>>> organizers just as well, and certainly at least part of the
>>>>> blame should
>>>>> be on the 'OSGEO central' shoulders...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours truly,
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Barend Köbben
>>>>> Senior Lecturer, ITC - University of Twente,
>>>>> Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation
>>>>> PO Box 217, 7500AE Enschede (The Netherlands)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13-04-13 14:30, "Cameron Shorter"
>>>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank,
>>>>>> I agree that a compelling proposal should include meeting foss4g
>>>>>> financial expectations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the record, the last board meeting discussed changing
>>>>>> guidelines for
>>>>>> foss4g budgets from expecting a $20K profit under
>>>>>> conservative estimates,
>>>>>> to a $50K profit. (This would typically result in a $100K+
>>>>>> profit under
>>>>>> expected conditions).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Bitner, pointed out that a $100K profit spread across 1000
>>>>>> attendees equates to $100 extra per delegate, which is a good
>>>>>> point, but
>>>>>> should be tempered against the variability of FOSS4G
>>>>>> attendees, and the
>>>>>> high impact on profits this has. Looking back at
>>>>>> an old foss4g budget, I extrapolated some profit figures:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attendees: Profit
>>>>>> 1000: $58K
>>>>>> 900: $35K
>>>>>> 800: $11K
>>>>>> 700: -$11K
>>>>>> 600: -$35K
>>>>>> 500: -$58K
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I made some gross generalisations in my extrapolation,
>>>>>> the take
>>>>>> home message is that fixed costs of a large conference such
>>>>>> as FOSS4G are
>>>>>> very high, and consequently, a small percentage increase or
>>>>>> decrease in
>>>>>> attendance has high impact on profitability.
>>>>>> So if we want to ensure a worst case scenario of 500
>>>>>> delegates will break
>>>>>> even, then we should expect to make a $110K profit for an
>>>>>> expected
>>>>>> attendance of 1000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/04/13 08:10, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cameron,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I feel this question ties into the expected revenue to some
>>>>>> degree. I'm
>>>>>> personally fine with your suggestion with the caveat that we
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> expect a "compelling proposal" to meet our revenue generation
>>>>>> guidelines
>>>>>> which is (IMHO) going to be hard
>>>>>> to do if aim for $50K revenue in the conservative case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm also fairly flexible on this who issue, but I *feel* like
>>>>>> every time
>>>>>> we have a revenue discussion we come up with one set of
>>>>>> conclusions, but
>>>>>> somehow we fail to actually apply those conclusion when setting
>>>>>> requirements for the conference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>>>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the last board meeting, the question was raised about
>>>>>> global FOSS4G
>>>>>> rotation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we currently have a 3 way rotation policy: Europe 2013 /
>>>>>> North America
>>>>>> 2014 / Rest of world 2015
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been suggested that we should revisit this rotation
>>>>>> policy, and
>>>>>> consider:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Europe / North America / Europe / North America
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reasons:
>>>>>> * Previous global FOSS4G events have attracted more people
>>>>>> and been more
>>>>>> lucrative in Europe / North America
>>>>>> * Europe/North America could be argued to be less financially
>>>>>> risky. Our
>>>>>> one cancelled FOSS4G was in China in 2012.
>>>>>> * FOSS4G (global and regional) events traditionally draw half
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> attendance from the local region. Europe and North America
>>>>>> both have
>>>>>> large populations with established OSGeo communities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm in favour of continuing our current 3 way rotation, on
>>>>>> the proviso
>>>>>> that there are proven OSGeo communities outside of NA/Europe.
>>>>>> By proven,
>>>>>> I'd suggest that we would consider regions which have already
>>>>>> successfully staged a FOSS4G regional event (or similar)
>>>>>> and who can put together a compelling justification that they can
>>>>>> attract comparable attendees and sponsors to Europe/North
>>>>>> America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at:
>>>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_History
>>>>>> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_History>
>>>>>> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_History>
>>>>>> I see that there have previously been regional FOSS4G events in:
>>>>>> Argentina
>>>>>> India
>>>>>> Korea
>>>>>> Malaysia
>>>>>> Japan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So for 2015, I'd suggest that our FOSS4G pre qualification
>>>>>> should invite
>>>>>> responses from "rest of the world" and Europe, but we should
>>>>>> give a
>>>>>> preference to "rest of world" assuming they can provide a
>>>>>> compelling
>>>>>> proposal which is likely to attract similar success
>>>>>> to past European and North American conferences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Generalising the rule. Our rotation policy should be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * We give a strong preference to a region which hasn't had
>>>>>> FOSS4G for 2
>>>>>> years
>>>>>> * We next consider the region which had FOSS4G 2 years ago
>>>>>> * Only as a last resort would we consider a region which had
>>>>>> FOSS4G last
>>>>>> year
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regions are considered as: Europe / North America / Other
>>>>>> locations
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cameron Shorter
>>>>>> Geospatial Solutions Manager
>>>>>> Tel:
>>>>>> +61 (0)2 8570 5050 <tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050>
>>>>>> <tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050>
>>>>>> Mob:
>>>>>> +61 (0)419 142 254 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254>
>>>>>> <tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>>>>> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>>>>>> http://www.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Board mailing list
>>>>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------+----------------------------------
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam,
>>>>>> warmerdam at pobox.com <mailto:warmerdam at pobox.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:warmerdam at pobox.com> <mailto:warmerdam at pobox.com>
>>>>>> light and sound - activate the windows |
>>>>>> http://pobox.com/~warmerdam <http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam>
>>>>>> <http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam> <http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam>
>>>>>> and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Software
>>>>>> Developer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cameron Shorter
>>>>>> Geospatial Solutions Manager
>>>>>> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050 <tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050>
>>>>>> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>>>>> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>>>>>> http://www.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cameron Shorter
>>> Geospatial Solutions Manager
>>> Tel:+61 (0)2 8570 5050 <tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050>
>>> Mob:+61 (0)419 142 254 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254>
>>>
>>> Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>>> http://www.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com/>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
>> eMail: daniel.kastl at georepublic.de <mailto:daniel.kastl at georepublic.de>
>> Web: http://georepublic.de <http://georepublic.de/>
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Geospatial Solutions Manager
> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>
> Think Globally, Fix Locally
> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
> http://www.lisasoft.com
--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20130421/b05ace9b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list