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

[Andrew Ross]

Thanks Bruce, I appreciate that.

I just wanted to make it very clear there's no bulldozing, whatever that means, involved. Everything has been done openly and consultative.

Fear and passion are at play with those kinds of dark thoughts. It's unjustified.

LocationTech is a not for profit that exists to nurture an open source ecosystem. And the people guiding it are good people who care deeply about the ecosystem. Only good has resulted so far with much potential for more.

As far as motivations to offer to organize FOSS4G, in case they weren't obvious, collaboration is the best outcome. It is not desirable to create yet another event and force people to choose. This model taking shape can solve a lot of problems people have been citing for a while. I'm pretty sure anyone would offer if they were waking in my shoes.

Also, so far as I can see, no one is trying to limit or diminish the non western world. The benefits of collaboration apply universally.

I truly believe it is FOSS4G profit sharing (& OSGeo income more specifically) at the root of concern here. No one seems troubled about a joint code sprint for example. I feel optimistic we can figure out a model that works well. I'm offering to help do so... accepting this is optional of course.

Andrew

On September 6, 2014 8:56:06 PM EDT, Bruce Bannerman <B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au> wrote:
>Hi Andrew,
>
>I suspect that we are talking about different aspects of this thread.
>
>I was not aware of the request that you mention below from a Board
>member. I must have missed this request, which I assume was via the
>OSGeo-Conf list. In that case, I apologise.
>
>
>I'll respond in more detail when I get a bit more time. It is Father's
>Day here.
>
>There are aspects that I will send more detail on. 
>
>
>Bruce
>
>________________________________________
>From: Andrew Ross [andrew.ross at eclipse.org]
>Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2014 12:58 PM
>To: Bruce Bannerman; conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] FOSS4G Discount for Charter   Members
>proposal [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>Bruce,
>
>Perhaps you might like to take the opportunity to apologize?
>
>LocationTech supported a FOSS4G bid along with others. If you feel
>anything about the bid was improper, speak up immediately and specific?
>
>LocationTech was asked by an OSGeo board member if it would consider
>hosting FOSS4G NA 2015. It decided to and this event received OSGeo
>board support in addition to the wide support in the community. The
>team is very diverse.
>
>This discussion is open, transparent, and a reasonable offer made in
>good faith. If you feel there's something improper, speak up
>immediately and be specific?
>
>Otherwise apologize.
>
>Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>Andrew
>
>On September 5, 2014 7:30:26 PM EDT, Bruce Bannerman
><B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au> wrote:
>
>I'm concerned as to the direction that this thread is going. I've
>avoided comment until now.
>
>As to FOSS4G:
>
>I've read a number of arguments that pre-suppose that only Europe and
>North America can run successful FOSS4G Conferences.
>
>- for those of us in other parts of the world who have run successful
>FOSS4G events, e.g. Australia and South Africa, this argument is
>insulting and divisive.
>
>- I also have every reason to believe that the upcoming Korean event
>will also be a success, given the passion that I'm seeing from the LOC.
>
>
>As to a single Professional Conference Organiser (PCO) for all FOSS4G:
>
>- this is counter productive. From my experiences with FOSS4G-2009, we
>needed a local PCO who knew what buttons to push to get 'things' done
>quickly and efficiently, often at short notice. I can't see a foreign
>PCO being able to do that effectively.
>
>- to any reputable PCO, FOSS4G is just
>another conference. This is their bread and butter work. They should be
>able to do it effectively.
>
>- a PCO is required as it frees up the LOC to concentrate on planning a
>good event. However with the number of competing local FOSS4G branded
>events, I can see that organising a good international event is just
>getting much, much harder.
>
>
>As to LocationTech:
>
>- I have not had much to do with this group before, apart from the
>confusion over the OGC CITE 'project'.
>
>- the way that it is trying to bulldoze itself into taking over the
>successful FOSS4G conference 'brand' does not impress me.
>
>
>Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
>[conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Paul Ramsey
>[pramsey at cleverelephant.ca]
>Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2014 3:27 AM
>To: David Percy
>Cc: conference
>Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] FOSS4G Discount for
>Charter Members   proposal
>
>The problem I see with the "one PCO" idea is that the PCO's that we
>enjoy working with and who can "get" us (as I also felt my 2007 PCO
>did) tend to be small and scrappy, like us. So they can't necessarily
>effectively globe-trot (though being ambitious they will often assert
>that sure, they really could!). For FOSS4G-NA it would make a lot of
>sense to just settle on a single PCO for a longer commitment.
>
>P
>
>On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:28 AM, David Percy <percyd at pdx.edu> wrote:
> When we chose VTM Group as our PCO for the PDX event next week one of
> my compelling reasons for voting for them is that they do
> international conferences and their clientele is similar to OSGeo [1].
>
>________________________________
>
>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/20140907/9ad0e941/attachment.html>