[OSGeo-Conf] Announcements about FOSS4G bid schedule and bid schedule preparation?

Eli Adam eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
Tue Jun 30 20:00:49 PDT 2015

Thanks for the input Till and Steven.

All, please review wiki and RFP, especially to see if I failed to
update one of the deadline dates somewhere.

More comments inline.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:41 AM,  <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
> Hi,
> regarding what Eli wrote in an earlier mail, me as not being a member of the
> conference team, I give my 2 cents on that anyhow:
> I really like the situation we have for 2016: We have more time than other
> LOC-teams. We can finish some things before summer break and start
> afterwards in a - in my eyes - really comfortable situation, knowing that
> things started to move really early. So that stresses the idea of kicking
> out the bid-process for 2017 ASAP.

Bonn was awarded on March 4th, all our current timelines will award
3-5 months earlier than that.  I'm glad that your timeline is working

> I think, that earlier location decisions might put LOC's into that
> comfortable situation, but very probably this leads even to better events
> (you might point me to this words end of August 2016 again ;-)).
> There is one thing to mention: It's a good and important thing having direct
> contact between LOC 2015 and 2016, especially in sight of not confusing
> potential sponsors or even worse, getting in competition between the events.
> Therefore I would suggest to write down a "need for conversation between
> LOC's" in the bid process (for 2017 and following).

This is a really good point.  I didn't think of this.  I've made the
following addition [10] to the RFP:

Conference Coordination with other LOCs

The FOSS4G bidding schedule now includes more advance notice before
the event (specifically more than one year). This additional time will
allow for greater venue availability.  This additional time also means
that LOCs now overlap for a substantial duration. There is a need for
direct conversation and coordination between the LOCs to avoid
conflict or confusion with regards to shared resources like potential
sponsors, twitter account usage, announcements, and other items.

> Second, I don't know anything about how your internal decisions work, but I
> know that the make of that proposal really is hard and a lot of work. So I
> would suggest to request only two teams for a full proposal (if there are
> more...).

Preparing a bid is a lot of work, however, I don't want to deny a LOC
the right to fully compete.  I think the regional rotation is supposed
to eliminate unnecessary bidding.  In the case of 2017, I don't see
any reason why we would have denied Dublin, Lausanne, or Bonn the
opportunity to bid.  Generally, while I'm acting as chair, I will make
things less restrictive unless there is a clear consensus on the
committee that voices otherwise.

> After the LofI you, the conference-team, know that both choosen teams should
> be able to run that conference, otherwise a full proposal makes no sense
> anyway.

I think that a lot happens between LOI and full proposals.  Seeing how
LOCs handle that and what decisions they make helps me decide how to
vote.  A LOI doesn't give me any confidence that a LOC can run a
conference.  Seeing them make a full proposal does.

> Regarding that, I would agree with Steven to request for a more detailed
> LofI, maybe asking for more "hard facts", especially for financial
> plannings.

If we raise the requirements of the LOI too high (like finances),
aren't we in effect just starting with a full proposal from the
beginning?  I've thought the LOI was a low effort expression of
interest (and subsequent opportunity to think about another year or
event depending on who else expresses interest).

> Am 2015-06-30 13:45, schrieb Steven Feldman:
>> Some thoughts on the 2017 bid process
>>         * Would it help if the Letters of Intent were a bit more detailed?

Yes, but we don't want to push the requirements too high.

>>         * We may want to do more early LoI questioning before going to
>> full
>> proposals

I see this as more helpful to the LOCs, than the conference committee
making a decision.  Reading conference committee questions from
previous years on the list is another great source of information and
a way to improve a proposal.  But, yes, hopefully the conference list
asks many thoughtful questions after the LOI.

>>         * If we start process soon, I suggest we allow a longer period for
>> LoI’s - given summer vacations till say mid/end August? Then 2 weeks
>> for questions. Then vote

I've pushed the schedule back to make all deadlines further apart.
You also raise an important point of perspective.  I invented this
schedule sitting in the US and North America and the event will be in
North America so that is fine.  I'm much less qualified to look at a
calendar and know which dates are "good" for Europe or other parts of
the world.  For the next two years, hopefully someone else will be the
acting conference committee chair through the RFP process, preferably
a European for 2019.

>>         * Letters of Intent - is 2 votes sufficient? Should we consider
>> changing criteria to 25% of votes (round down to whole number)?

Again, I don't see it as fair to deny a LOC the opportunity of making
a full proposal.  Also less restrictive is my default approach as
acting chair.  Bad proposals waste the creators' time, not the
committee's who will readily discard a poor proposal with no time or

>>         * Full bids submitted by mid October, then 2-3 weeks for questions
>> and decision by mid November 2015 (approx 21/22 months before event)

Schedule revised (mostly by making deadlines further apart).  This
gives us another few days to review and kick this off.

Thanks, Eli

[10] https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/changeset/12445/foss4g/rfp/2017/osgeo-conference-2017-request-for-proposal.odt

>> Steven
>>> On 24 Jun 2015, at 06:13, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us [1]>
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I've prepared a rough draft for a process outline and new schedule
>>> [6]. Please review and revise. Otherwise, express some positive
>>> support.
>>> I have a few thoughts about the schedule: Do we really want to be
>>> asking questions and making the decision during FOSS4G 2015? Should
>>> we ensure that the decision is *after* FOSS4G 2015 (future FOSS4G
>>> focus at 2015 should be 2016 not 2017)?
>>> I've also started a cursory 2017 RFP process in SVN [7]. Please
>>> update as needed.
>>> I've prepared a draft for a press release [8], please revise.
>>> Should we make an OSGeo email alias, rfp at osgeo.org [2] for any
>>> private
>>> communications (likely sponsors)?
>>> The website RFP page [9] needs to be edited too. I think that I have
>>> rights to do this once we decide on details.
>>> Thanks and best regards, Eli
>>> [6] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2017_Bid_Process [3]
>>> [7] https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2017 [4]
>>> [8] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2017_RFP_Release_Text [5]
>>> [9] http://www.osgeo.org/conference/rfp [6]
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
>> [2] mailto:rfp at osgeo.org
>> [3] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2017_Bid_Process
>> [4] https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/browser/foss4g/rfp/2017
>> [5] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2017_RFP_Release_Text
>> [6] http://www.osgeo.org/conference/rfp
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list