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

[Andrew Ross]

Ok Bruce, looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Regards,

Andrew

On September 7, 2014 6:33:55 PM EDT, Bruce Bannerman <B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au> wrote:
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20140908/f1a2f2c6/attachment.html>