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

Jeff McKenna jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Fri Nov 6 09:41:14 PST 2015

Of course you can use the existing #osgeo or #foss4g channels on IRC, 
but since you want a private meeting (those channels are logged), just 
pick a weird name (not likely to exist as a channel) and then join that 
room (the channel will be created automagically).  I just entered (and 
left) the channel #foss4gdecision   now for example.

And if you don't have a favourite IRC client, just connect to that new 
channel through your browser at https://webchat.freenode.net/


On 2015-11-06 1:28 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
> 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
>> <mailto: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
>>> --
>>> *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>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list