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

Robert Cheetham cheetham at azavea.com
Fri Nov 6 10:01:08 PST 2015


Thanks for pulling together a summary table.  A few suggestions and some
additional info for Philadelphia:

 * Maximum capacity: 2000+
 * Concurrent tracks supported:  10
 * free wifi:  yes

Some additional suggestions:

 * Add a row for hotel rates - affordability was a significant concern in
the pre-proposal questions.  Philadelphia's rate is $209

 * "Workshops" should be "Workshops Only" and "Workshops Only EB" as the
actual workshop price will likely be only $100/half day ($200 total) for
anyone that attends the full conference.  It's not clear from the Boston
proposal, but I think $100 workshop fee is a per half day number added to
the regular conference price, which suggests it should be listed as $200
added to the conference fee in the "Conf + Workshop" and "Conf + Workshop
EB" lines, rather than $100 in the "Workshop Only" line, but perhaps
Michael Terner can clarify.

 * In order to support an apples-to-apples comparison, the "PCO" line
should probably be re-labeled "Production" or "Operations" with a line each
for PCO fee and "Other Production Costs".  The Eclipse Foundation included
marketing efforts and other labor activities in the PCO fee, and it's not
clear to me how best to compare this fee between the three bids, but the
the Philadelphia and Ottawa proposals broke out the PCO fee from other
operations and production costs while the Boston bid included the PCO in a
$149k production costs.




On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:37 AM, 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> 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>
> 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
>> 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).
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e60b4c7f/attachment.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list