[OSGeo-Conf] Question Period: Bonn proposal

Sat Feb 28 05:24:54 PST 2015

Dear Eli, @Conference-list,

your question indeed hits an important point and to be honest, we did 
not line out that in detail. But we have discussed that issue before 
with Klaus Greve, who cares for EARSeL in 2016:

In general we are confident, that both conferences must act financial 
seperated and keep their own identity. So we will not join completely 
into one event, but also do not want only having two successive events. 
This will require that some plannings must be together, but with Klaus 
we have the EARSeL chair in our LOC.

In general we want to cooperate where it makes sense and where we can 
benefit from each other. In case of using the same rooms (e.g. Plenary 
Chamber on Wednesday), we want to level costs between the conferences. 
As wednesday would be the common conference day, attendees of both 
conferences may visit every session they like and communities can mix up 
that way.

If an EARSeL attendee wants to visit also full FOSS4G (or FOSS4G 
attendees EARSeL), they should be able to book this as kind of 
"both-conference-package". We've discussed a discount for that, as there 
is that common wednesday and an attendee shouldn't have to pay twice for 
that day. If attending one of the conferences, you will registrate on 
the conference page itself, but the package should be available on both 
pages.

To clear that up also: We do not think, that such a discount will 
influence our calculation heavily, as we all together calculated very 
carefully and also, if we connect both conferences, we very likely will 
get discount on room rents for WCCB.

After finishing both conferences we have to balance accounts, especially 
for this "package-bookings" and for common expenses such as rent for 
WCCB, food and so on.

We hope that will answer your questions, if not, just ask, I will be 
online later again.

Till

Am 27.02.2015 21:39, schrieb Eli Adam:
> Hi Till and Bonn,
>
> If FOSS4G 2016 is a joint conference with EARSeL how will
> admission/registration work?  EARSeL seems to be slightly less
> expensive.  It would of course be most convenient to allow access to
> registrants of either conference full access to both but that requires
> working out an expense and income sharing plan.  Not allowing access
> then makes them not really joint conferences but co-located
> conferences (which is convenient for travel but doesn't offer all the
> benefits of a joint conference).
>
> Is EARSeL able to (and willing or comfortable) dealing with FOSS4G and
> OSGeo which some people or organizations might consider excessively
> relaxed or casual?  OSGeo's do-ocratic
> (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Do-ocracy) process is not always easily
> understood and can appear as dysfunction when there is no champion who
> volunteers for some seemingly important task.
>
> I think a joint conference with EARSeL is a great opportunity.  The
> much smaller joint conferences with which I'm knowledgeable seem to be
> rather problematic in the minor details.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Jeff McKenna
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Till for your explanations.  I don't have any more comments at the
>> moment, so I will let the Conference Committee ask questions.
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2015-02-24 5:43 PM, Till Adams wrote:
>>> Dear Jeff (and hello conference-list),
>>>
>>> thanks for your detailed review of our proposal. We reduce our answers
>>> to where you really asked a question. First we cited your question, then
>>> answered, marked with a "->"
>>>
>>>
>>> - 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).
>>>
>>> -> Okay, understood, the effect you describe is definitely not what we
>>> want.On the other hand, we need a planning base for the Ice Breaker.
>>> Might be we can include Ice Breaker in the conference fees, if any of
>>> our possibilities to save money comes up.
>>>
>>>
>>> - 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.
>>>
>>> -> The term is Free for use. No copyright on that ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> - 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)
>>>
>>> -> That's true, we did not mark this in the program draft, as we did not
>>> want to do too much plannings in advance. We think there are at least
>>> two possibilities, either to let one workshop track be kind of
>>> "Introduction"-Workshops with a more general focus and maybe successive.
>>> Also or as an alternative there is definitely the chance to rent another
>>> room or to get a lecture theatre inside university, depending on where
>>> the workshops will be.
>>>
>>>
>>> - 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?
>>>
>>> -> I guess WCCB told us, that the technique for that is available in all
>>> rooms. In case that does not work, we as FOSSGIS have some contacts, as
>>> we are also recording all FOSSGIS tracks.
>>>
>>>
>>> - 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).
>>>
>>> -> Of course, the spatial seperation makes sense from the cost view. If
>>> we get rooms for that offsite and if they are really too far, we can
>>> count onour PCO, whoalready provided such a shuttle service for another
>>> conference before.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Section 5.4: in your budget I don't seem to see any costs for the Code
>>>    Sprint (such as venue and catering).
>>>
>>> -> We have several possibilities for code Sprint inside university,
>>> which will not cause extra costs for room rent. We have finally to
>>> decide, where we go. For the catering I am sure to find a sponsor (at
>>> least my own company ;-)). So we do not see extra costs coming up here.
>>>
>>>
>>> So far, if anything still remains as an open issue, please don't
>>> hesitate ask!
>>>
>>> Best regards, for the Bonn team,
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 21.02.2015 22:48, schrieb 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
>>>>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev