[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] next year's representative at FOSS4G Conference

[Till Adams]

Hi,

as said, it's not a problem for me, but I think this is an issue that 
must be clarified in any direction.

So far.

Till



Am 15.04.2015 14:32, schrieb Volker Mische:
> Hi all,
>
> On 04/15/2015 09:53 AM, Till Adams wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In general OSGEO wants and more or less expects that the chair or
>> another representative of the following conference is present on the
>> preceding event. That's fair and also in my eyes more or less a "must".
>
> I agree.
>
>> But it is not sure, that my (above lined out) situation fits to all
>> following chairs of a FOSS4G conference in future. So I think, there
>> should be a binding agreement in general.
>>
>> If a company pays for all the costs for travelling, accomodation and
>> also conference fees, the company expects (regardless whether the
>> representative is shareholder or employee) that the person benefits from
>> the conference in the sense of the company. This leads to the situation,
>> that the next chair is present, but as a delegate and also by order of
>> OSGEO.
>> In my eyes, something does not really fit here.
>
> I think that's OK. Being a chair is already a commitment to the OSGeo 
> from the company you work. So you have to play both roles (being a 
> representative of the company and the OSGeo).
>
>> I think, if OSGEO really wants the chair/ a representative to invite to
>> the following conference, the representative should be there by order of
>> OSGEO. This is at least part of marketing and therefore in my eyes at
>> least part of the marketing budget of the next conference -- if so that
>> OSGEO does not care for this.
>
> If there is budget, it should be from marketing, but I don't think 
> there should be a budget (see more below).
>
>> The representative in case on his/her side should be expected to act
>> professionally enough, not to mix up FOSS4G and company interests in
>> that case. That's the same what e.g. Jeff as president or other board
>> members do as well all the time (not to mix up!) ;-)
>
> Agreed.
>
>> The other way would be to write clearly down in the proposal-requests,
>> that OSGEO expects the chair to be present on the preceding conference
>> by on his/her own account.
>>
>> That's just what It think - regardless of what will be decided for now
>> or for the conference from 2017 or whenever. For me personnally not that
>> problem, I will come to Seoul anyway :-). But worth to start a
>> discussion here.
>
> I guess it's clear that it's good to have a representative at the 
> preceding FOSS4G. Though I would personally wonder if there really 
> won't be anyone attending. So far someone of the LOCs has been to 
> previous FOSS4G (I guess that's also often a reason to give such a LOC 
> the conference), so why shouldn't be someone be at the preceding one.
>
> Hence I'm against having it part of the budget as mentioned in other 
> mails it can become quite costly, which would mean the attendees would 
> pay for it and I don't really see a huge benefit for them. I would 
> rather have a video presence then.
>
> Another reason for not having it in the budget is that it would be 
> unfair due to the rotation of the location. Someone of the European 
> conference would always need to go "somewhere else", while the one of 
> the US conference would always travel to Europe (and  I expect that 
> "somewhere else" is often a bit more expensive).
>
> Cheers,
>   Volker