[OSGeo-Conf] Call to discuss FOSS4G 2017 proposals prior to voting

[Steven Feldman]

Conference Committee members (as opposed to the wider list)

Friday is drawing to a close. 5 out of 6 of you have voted for 16.00-17.00 GMT on  either Monday or Tuesday.

Can i suggest that we schedule the call for Monday so that there is a day left for last minute questions to the 3 bidders before voting starts. Of course all of the conference committee are welcome to join the discussion not just those who voted in the poll. Those connected with a bid have all excluded themselves from the call and from voting.

If it is a skype call or a google hangout I can set that up, if the preference is for IRC can one of you send out a message with the channel name (I haven’t got a clue about IRC)

Cheers
______
Steven


> On 6 Nov 2015, at 15:37, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Michael
> 
> Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions. I have updated the comparison.
> 
> Any other changes?
> ______
> Steven
> 
> 
>> On 6 Nov 2015, at 03:53, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com <mailto:mgt at appgeo.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Steven:
>> Thanks for generating and distributing the summary. It is very helpful to see everything lined up in one place. As per your request I would like to offer the following clarification/observations to some of your data:
>> Code Sprint: As per our proposal and subsequent Q&A response, we have identified the code sprint as a "co-located" event that we would potentially hold during the workshop days (8/14-8/15). We would like to have a co-located code sprint and will work energetically with community organizers of the event to find the right time and place.
>> Venue Max Capacity: Our venue could potentially exceed 1,200, if needed. It would take some additional planning but we are considering attracting 1200 people an excellent goal, and it would be a "good problem" and feasible to be stretched a bit beyond that.
>> Venue Condition: As per earlier Q&A, the 810 room block is what has been offered. Specific conditions and any potential penalties are subject to negotiation if we are awarded the conference. The current proposal we have from the hotel does not mention any penalties, only that this is the maximum block of rooms that is being held for the conference.
>> Distribution to OSGeo: Yes, Boston has committed at least 80% of net revenues to OSGeo (with the balance being used to establish/endow a Boston Chapter of OSGeo). We also capped the amount of that endowment to $20,000 so if we were to net our estimated profit of $145,000, OSGeo would receive $125,000, or 86.2%. We would respectfully suggest that your table also include the "net distribution" to OSGeo, not just the % as that may be misleading. Per the Philadelphia proposal's 1000 attendee number, even providing 90%, the total net return to OSGeo is $75,000, compared to Boston's $125,000 at the same attendance level. Even at an attendance of 850, Boston would still provide $73,900 to OSGeo. At 700 people, Boston would provide $31,860 to OSGeo, while Philadelphia estimates they would break even - i.e., no return to OSGeo - at 785 attendees (per the Q&A). Boston's net numbers also compare favorably to Ottawa's when looked at not only by %, but by the net, estimated contribution to OSGeo, although Ottawa anticipates holding a smaller conference in terms of attendees. In short, the budgetary comparison in the table is not "apples-to-apples" and we encourage the selection committee to closely review the nuanced differences in the "distribution to OSGeo" approaches and estimated outcomes.
>> Thanks again for preparing this very helpful summary table and encouraging our comments/fact checking.
>> 
>> MT
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I thought it might be helpful to prepare a short summary of the bids (primarily financial).
>> 
>> Bidders let me know if I have misinterpreted or have errors
>> 
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Michael Terner
>> Executive Vice President
>> 617-447-2468 Direct | 617-447-2400 Main
>> Applied Geographics, Inc.
>> 24 School Street, Suite 500
>> Boston, MA 02108
>> www.AppGeo.com <http://www.appgeo.com/>
>>             
>> 
>> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or otherwise authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy, distribute, disclose or take any action based on the information contained in this e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this message and material in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics, Inc. (AppGeo).
> <Summary of FOSS4G 2017 Proposals.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20151106/1c9045d5/attachment.html>