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

Sun Sep 7 15:33:55 PDT 2014

Andrew,

I'm not in favour of the model that is proposed below.

I'll respond in more detail as soon as I can find more time.

Bruce

________________________________________
From: Andrew Ross [andrew.ross at eclipse.org]
Sent: Monday, 8 September 2014 1:11 AM
To: Bruce Bannerman; conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Conf] [Board] FOSS4G Discount for Charter   Members proposal [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

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