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

Peter Batty peter at ebatty.com
Fri Nov 6 09:49:51 PST 2015

Steven, I could go either way but my personal preference would be for an
audio call - skype or hangout or whatever you prefer. I suggest you wait a
little longer to see if anyone else has any input and then you decide and
let us know.


On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>

> 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/
> -jeff
> 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>
>> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20151106/b3973a48/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list