[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] FOSS4G Discount for Charter Members proposal

Andrew Ross andrew.ross at eclipse.org
Thu Aug 28 06:09:03 PDT 2014


I'd like to start (continue?) the discussion by simply offering to have 
the Eclipse Foundation staff run a regular event on behalf of the FOSS4G 
community (including OSGeo projects, LocationTech projects, & many other 
related organizations and unaffiliated projects) similar to what we 
proposed for Washington D.C.. It was a detailed proposal so perhaps a 
good place to start with and frame the discussion. Unless I'm mistaken, 
much of it may be quite acceptable and help us narrow what could be an 
overwhelming discussion down to a few key areas. Is this reasonable?

For what it's worth, I'm definitely open minded if there's a better 


On 27/08/14 16:54, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> All good ideas.
> Anyone up for consolidating ideas into a proposal, then obtain 
> agreement from the conference committee?
> A start has been made at:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook
> In particular:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Editing_this_document
> It still requires some integration with the FOSS4G RFP
> On 27/08/2014 3:54 am, Andrew Ross wrote:
>> Thanks for the clarification Peter. For what it's worth, I agree that 
>> a clearly defined mechanism makes a lot of sense.
>> On 26/08/14 12:08, Peter Baumann wrote:
>>> sorry, folks, that was not intended to go into this thread but 
>>> another one. Now I see I have not been fast enough with ESC.
>>> OK, another attempt to say something meaningful:
>>> OSGeo might license its brand to conferences, and this allows them 
>>> to send invoices even to universities. Secures OSGeo a fixed income, 
>>> allowing LOCs to plan ahead.
>>> -Peter
>>> On 08/26/2014 05:42 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
>>>> Sorry Peter, I'm not sure I understand your comment?
>>>> On 26/08/14 11:22, Peter Baumann wrote:
>>>>> so back with universities :)
>>>>> -Peter
>>>>> On 08/26/2014 05:16 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
>>>>>> Very good point.
>>>>>> A not-for-profit organizer may be a significant benefit and 
>>>>>> simplify things quite a bit.
>>>>>> A bunch more legal/fiscal issues emerge when you run events and 
>>>>>> have to handle and transfer funds internationally. The number of 
>>>>>> organizations who can handle this is fairly limited and those 
>>>>>> that do so for a reasonable fee even more so. Continuity helps 
>>>>>> make it worthwhile to figure this out in the first place and stay 
>>>>>> on top of it as things change over time.
>>>>>> On 26/08/14 10:59, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
>>>>>>> Amen. We burned at least two months, maybe three, working that out.
>>>>>>> I think it’s actually really funny that the first piece of 
>>>>>>> advice given to the LOC by OSGeo is “Find a conference organizer 
>>>>>>> to help you.”
>>>>>>> If that’s the first piece of advice, then it seems pretty clear 
>>>>>>> to me that OSGeo should just have a conference organizer on 
>>>>>>> contract. The benefits of continuity from year to year would be 
>>>>>>> enormous.
>>>>>>> d.
>>>>>>> On Aug 26, 2014, at 07:54, David William Bitner 
>>>>>>> <bitner at dbspatial.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> And none of this even discusses the hassles that a grass roots 
>>>>>>>> organizing group has with finding an entity to act as a fiscal 
>>>>>>>> agent (aka deal with the money).

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list