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

Thu Aug 28 06:43:09 PDT 2014

You might actually be able to rethink the whole process of selecting locations.

Since all logistics / financial parts would be handled between OSGeo and Eclipse, perhaps you could look at an expression of interest for an LOC to work with OSGeo, and then based on responses, OSGeo with Eclipse could discuss with potential groups to select a location.

I don't think a formal RFP process would make much sense at this stage and allow for the organization to have much more control on the process, allowing it to align with Board / OSGeo priorities.

Dave

Sent from mobile
dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com

> On Aug 28, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Daniel Kastl <daniel at georepublic.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> And I would like to ask, if Eclipse Foundation staff would be able to run a conference some other place than Europe or North America. Because I looked at the past EclipseCon conference locations, and I couldn't find any other conference location than in Europe or North America.
> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl> wrote:
>> Hey Andrew,
>> 
>> in the case where the Eclipse Foundation staff would run the FOSS4G event, would OSGeo still issue the RFP? Or would this be done by the Eclipse Foundation instead?
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Bart
>> 
>> On 28 Aug 2014, at 15:09, Andrew Ross <andrew.ross at eclipse.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > Cameron,
>> >
>> > 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 approach.
>> >
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > 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).
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Conference_dev mailing list
>> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
> eMail: daniel.kastl at georepublic.de
> Web: http://georepublic.info
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20140828/d75a04c3/attachment.html>