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

b.j.kobben at utwente.nl b.j.kobben at utwente.nl
Thu Sep 4 23:38:00 PDT 2014


Barend (part of 2013 LOC)

Barend Köbben
Senior Lecturer ­ ITC-University of Twente
PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede (Netherlands)

On 05-09-2014 00:51, "Cameron Shorter" <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Andrew,
>The Washington FOSS4G proposal was very compelling, however it was not
>selected. I can't speak for all the committee who voted or for their
>reasons for selection, however I will hazard some guesses, and aim to be
>frank to help further dialogue.
>When LocationTech was founded there was concern from some that OSGeo
>would become redundant due to LocationTech attracting  Open Source GIS
>mindshare away from OSGeo. While LocationTech has attracted some
>mindshare, I think many of the original concerns have not yet been
>realised, and OSGeo still remains a very effective and efficiently run
>Beyond the efficiency of OSGeo's do-ocrity approach to empowering
>volunteer communities, I suspect part of the reason OSGeo retains its
>brand recognition is the strong association between OSGeo and FOSS4G
>conferences. These FOSS4G conferences also provide OSGeo with a modest
>income which cover's OSGeo's frugal expenses.
>I sense there is an unspoken concern within OSGeo voting communities
>that giving control of FOSS4G conferences to LocationTech has the
>potential to:
>1. Cut into OSGeo's current primary income source.
>2. Result in a loss of OSGeo's control of FOSS4G and related activities.
>3. Erode OSGeo's brandname, marketing reach, and mindshare.
>This is a different situation to OSGeo engaging a Professional
>Conference Organisor (PCO) to run a FOSS4G event, as the PCO is not
>competing for Open Source GIS mindshare.
>If LocationTech wish to play a greater role in FOSS4G, and attract OSGeo
>trust and community votes, I suggest LocationTech put practical measures
>in place which focus on these touch points.
>On 28/08/2014 11:09 pm, Andrew Ross 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 it¹s actually really funny that the first piece of
>>>>>>>>> advice given to the LOC by OSGeo is ³Find a conference
>>>>>>>>> organizer to help you.²
>>>>>>>>> If that¹s 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
>Cameron Shorter,
>Software and Data Solutions Manager
>Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>Conference_dev mailing list
>Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list