[OSGeo-Conf] Question Period: Bonn proposal

[Jeff McKenna]

Hello Till and Bonn team,

Thanks for your detailed proposal, here are my questions and comments on 
your full proposal:

- your proposal is easy to follow, as it closely follows the RFP 
"Requirements" section (that's page 9 and 10, for OSGeo conference 
committee members reading this)

- Section 1.4: thank you for putting OSGeo into the focus.  As you 
mention later, this could be by highlighting the AGM, and even little 
things (yet so important) such as OSGeo logos and banners on all venue 
stages, signs, and websites.

- Section 1.4.2: I agree on the importance of social events.  I have 
noticed a negative effect however on charging in advance for these 
social events, especially for such things as ice breakers and closing 
parties (attendees just want to know where to go, to buy a beer and 
network, and I've received many many complaints about charging for 
tickets for things like ice breakers over the years)  Especially as so 
many travel for FOSS4G, and the first day ice breaker many haven't 
thought of 'tickets' and just want to see friends/peers.  I find that 
these extra 'tickets' can separate the community (half goes to the paid 
event, and the other half doesn't want to pay the ticket and is 
scattered around the city).

- Section 1.4.5: I like this term "Pub Race", finally after all these 
years we have a name for why we are so tired after 6 nights of a FOSS4G 
event, from "racing" ha.

- Section 1.5: I think it's wonderful that you put focus on the 
GeoForAll education initiative.

- Section 1.6: I really like your plan for an information session for 
the "FOSS-uneducated", as you said, it was super-successful in Denver. 
You suggest a half day session, but I can't find it mentioned anywhere 
else, such as in the proposed program.  Would it likely happen on the 
second workshop day (the day before the sessions begin)?  Would there be 
any additional costs associated with it?  (I'm very for this, but I just 
want to make sure you catch these costs in your proposed budget and program)

- Section 2.3.3: indeed the parliamentary plenary hall looks beautiful 
and unique.

- Section 2.3.4: Pat on the back for already meeting with WCCB staff. 
Your tech requirements listed show that your team understands the 
demands of FOSS4G attendees.

- Section 2.3.5: Recording of presentations is very important, and then 
of course archiving them on the website.  Portland team raised the bar 
by live streaming FOSS4G talks, are you also considering this?

- Section 2.5: Free public transportation ticket for the stay is wonderful.

- Section 3.2: Thank you for addressing my concerns of multiple 
conference chairs.  Overall I am impressed with the proposed local 
committee.  And how nice it is to see someone already tasked with 
conference bags, shirts, etc.

- Section 4.1: My own opinion is that of course workshops would make 
more sense offsite at the university (and not in the expensive WCCB 
venue).  But as it is a few kms away, I would suggest providing 
transportation from WCCB to workshop site (many FOSS4Gs did provide this 
transportation free of charge to attendees).

   - having FOSSGIS e.V. as organizer and using its reduced VAT rate as 
charitable organization should definitely be examined.

   - My opinion is that the gala event should be included in the 
conference fees.  Networking is one of the biggest benefits of a FOSS4G 
event, and as I said earlier, these extra 'tickets' cause negative 
impressions on FOSS4G attendees.

- Section 4.2: I was at first a little surprised at how only Netherlands 
was mentioned as part of the community (in the first sections of your 
proposal), so it is good to see here that your team realizes the 
importance of the whole European community.

- Section 5.4: in your budget I don't seem to see any costs for the Code 
Sprint (such as venue and catering).

- Section 5.6: I don't see any issues of the proposed end of August timing.

- Section 5.8: Thank you for explaining the relationship between FOSSGIS 
and FOSS4G (as well as language).  I agree with your proposed plan to 
keep the events separate.

- Section 5.9: Connecting the EARSel remote sensing network with FOSS4G 
could be wonderful indeed (and in full support from the mayor and 
university).  Not to mention a possible reduction in venue costs (90% ?!).

- Section 6.2: Nice to see that you have already selected a PCO, so the 
conference committee can learn about the PCO beforehand.

- Section 6.3: I like the draft logos (second option, ha).


Thanks again for this proposal.


-jeff