[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2016 and 2017 and 2018 Call for Hosting

[Kristin Bott]

Another voice from the FOSS4G 2014 LOC -- I'd +1 an earlier bid process
from a fundraising angle, too -- many sponsoring orgs set their budgets 12+
months out, and it's harder to approach sponsors if you don't have all of
the details nailed down (venue, etc).

-k.bott

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Fair points Arnulf
> >
> > Surely the announcement requesting LoI’s can be anticipated by potential
> bid
> > teams who can start their venue planning etc before the official
> > announcement.
>
> Writing LoI's is easy and can be done years in advance or the week in
> advance.  Reserving venues with a deposit is more of a commitment.
>
> >
> > We know 2016 is Europe, 2017 is America, 2018 is somewhere else 2019 is
> > Europe, 2020 America and 2012 is somewhere else - do teams bidding for
> 2017
> > onwards need any more notification than that?
>
> Yes, LOCs need a decision so that they can pay a deposit on their
> venue.  Most venues will not reserve without a deposit and most LOCs
> won't pay a deposit without a decision that they have been awarded the
> bid.
>
> Where is PyCon in 2017?  Oh, Portland [1], they already know far in
> advance and will be reserving venues, the same venues that FOSS4G
> might be considering.  Same for other cities and other conferences.
> The conferences that book the same venues as FOSS4G reserve 2-3 years
> in advance, for FOSS4G to have a chance at those venues we need to
> reserve on similar time frames (or rely on luck or alternate venues or
> adjust the dates).
>
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
> [1]
> http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2014/08/portland-chosen-as-pycon-20162017.html
>
>
> > ______
> > Steven
> >
> >
> > On 19 Dec 2014, at 11:52, Seven (aka Arnulf) <seven at arnulf.us> wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Steven,
> > in my experience there are several distinct phases and the very initial
> > phase of selecting a venue, coordinating with parallel events, starting
> > dialogs about co-location etc. need to be done with enough time to go.
> > This will typically be done by a small team of initial firestarters.
> >
> > Later on the team will grow and include others. The last sprint planning
> > meeting will take place just a few months prior to the conference.
> >
> > Therefore I would not think that an early CfP will result in a tired or
> > burnt-out team. It is the responsibility of the LOC chair to manage
> > accordingly (as you have brilliantly managed to) and take care that the
> > team will not be stretched too hard (...until a few weeks prior to the
> > event when the team has to go full throttle).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Arnulf
> >
> > On 19.12.2014 08:33, Steven Feldman wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure that I agree that LOCs need or want more than 18-20
> > months notice. Whilst there may be a benefit in terms of venue
> > booking, there could be a downside in team fatigue and drop out
> >
> > For FOSS4G2013 we started thinking about the event and putting a team
> > together in September 2011. We were ready with a venue (provisional
> > booking) by the time the call for LoIs came out.
> >
> > Steven
> >
> > On 19 Dec 2014, at 01:13, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
> >
> > Conference Committee,
> >
> > Consistent feedback from previous LOCs is "make the FOSS4G LOC
> > decision with more time before the event".  The 2016 decision is
> > slated to be made on 2015-03-01 [1].  Should we launch the 2017
> > process on 2015-03-02?  It seems that LOCs are eagerly awaiting
> > the opportunity to bid and are more than prepared once the process
> > happens.
> >
> > A LOC decision with more time before the event may also be the
> > single best way to ensure success and reduce risk.  It is also
> > super easy.  I suggest moving up the 2017 and 2018 timelines.
> > Until there are complaints from potential LOCs that the decision is
> > too early or more importantly if there are no quality bids, then I
> > think the decision can be made sooner.
> >
> > Claude, Sorry to hear that there is not suitable date availability
> > at your top choice venue.  I'm sure that if Lausanne bids it would
> > be one of several very excellent bids.  Had the bid been earlier
> > and awarded to Lasanne, I'm sure that the LOC would already be well
> > on the way to a great conference.
> >
> > Best regards, Eli
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.osgeo.org/conference/rfp/
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Conference_dev
> > mailing list Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> >
> >
> >
> > - --
> > Exploring Space, Time and Mind
> > http://arnulf.us
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> > iEYEARECAAYFAlSUEZoACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b3Q4ACeK9zadq5oE4s9IqhUAUm2DZT9
> > lM8AnRKDuLTKE2mWxymvfYO1ekiMVqiz
> > =l4Nu
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141222/49ebb110/attachment.html>