[OSGeo-Conf] Call to discuss FOSS4G 2017 proposals prior to voting
jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Sat Nov 7 15:20:27 PST 2015
Are you saying that in your vision your FOSS4G event will have branding
like the FOSS4G-NorthAmerica events? Maybe you could paste an example
page from a past NorthAmerica event that shows your vision. What I see
is branding of LocationTech, Eclipse, and OSGeo - it is not clear to me
from those pages that this is OSGeo's one global event, our flagship
event, one that we have driven since 2006. Well of course, the
FOSS4G-NA event is not the global event, not managed by OSGeo, so that
branding worked, and I have no problem at all with that branding for the
FOSS4G-NA events; careful though, now we're talking/bidding for OSGeo's
event). This is very different. We must make it clear that this event
is hosted by OSGeo. Or are you saying that the branding will be as
"FOSS4G 2017 Ottawa, Hosted by OSGeo" period? Or what is your proposed
vision for that tagline.
Since 2007 we've had so many PCO's, and we've never had a branding issue
(would a normal attendee of FOSS4G-Seoul have a clue who the PCO company
name was? Should that be important?).
I guess, you could explain more your vision of how all this works, for
On 2015-11-07 6:30 PM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
> After reading Michael’s summary - I realized that there are quite
> different perspectives on taking on the responsibility of hosting FOSS4G
> for OSGeo, so for the sake of clarity and transparency felt compelled to
> provide the perspective of the Ottawa LOC on taking this on.
> When some of our keen and active members of the Ottawa OSGeo Local
> Chapter approached me about participating in this event, a lot of great
> memories of hosting the precursor we did in 2004 came back to me, but so
> did the memories of the mountains of work, unexpected twists and turns,
> and complete underestimation we had of the job at hand. Over the years
> I’ve had conversations with many of the hosts of this event, who even
> with the assistance of an experienced PCO, and with all the energy and
> best intentions in the world, have been overwhelmed by the amount of
> work required, particularly due to some of the unique needs that come
> with putting on an open source geospatial event.
> With this in mind, I joined our LOC, with an eye to advising and
> supporting from my experience with this event. When the group asked if I
> would be willing to Chair — I said I would, but the condition of that
> was that we had to have a very strong PCO to work with, as I was well
> aware of what the alternative would look like in terms of impacts on our
> team, and our ability to pull off a world class professional event.
> At this point I approached LocationTech to see if they would be
> interested in acting as our PCO in our bid to OSGeo to host FOSS4G for
> the foundation. I had several reasons for this which I will explain
> below - but before this, want to share the next step of our process in
> selecting a PCO. In order to ensure due diligence, we invited another
> prominent PCO from Ottawa to offer their services so that we could
> compare options. The end point of this was a three way discussion among
> the Ottawa PCO, LocationTech and the Ottawa LOC. It was an interesting
> experiment in collaborative discussion on this - and the result was the
> other PCO we were speaking with suggested it really made most sense for
> us to work with LocationTech on our bid. That provided for me the
> reassurance that this was the right way for us to approach this.
> For us, the advantages of this approach come down to the following:
> 1. Eclipse has long experience and infrastructure specifically designed
> for hosting international open source events and all the uniqueness
> that implies. No need to re-invent the wheel for Technical Workshop
> sign-ups, incorporating BOFs, Sprints, and the many other elements of
> this event.
> 2. I remember how much time Sponsorship recruitment took — something
> typically grossly underestimated. With LocationTech involved we get a
> group that already has a strong institutional membership base, and key
> relationships to the organizations that are likely to be sponsors for
> this event. That’s both a tremendous amount of work that doesn’t have to
> depend on volunteer time, with a far greater chance of success in
> securing sponsorships that financially de-risk this event.
> 3. With LocationTech involved, I feel we have a much greater chance of
> securing higher attendance due to the direct marketing access that comes
> with this to the LocationTech and Eclipse community.
> 4. LocationTech has a unique motivation to make this a great event —
> which is advancing the open source geospatial technology movement,
> something that is core to their raison-d’etre, and as such, I know they
> would put their heart and soul into this in a way we could not expect
> from any other PCO.
> Finally, I just want to re-iterate in case there is any confusion here,
> that we as an LOC have put this bid forward from the get-go with a goal
> of putting on a great OSGeo event. This is the LOCs bid to host this
> event, and not Eclipse. It is the LOC that will be the driver of what
> this whole event will look like, and the LOC will be working with OSGeo
> to ensure this is a great world class event reflective of OSGeo’s needs.
> Our choice of a PCO is because it makes the most sense to us
> logistically to pull this off.
> There were good questions about branding, and I think we’ve made it
> clear — this is the OSGeo Global FOSS4G event, that’s what we want it to
> be as the LOC and what we’re committed to putting on. LocationTech will
> have presence of course as we indicated, in a similar manner to their
> past participation at FOSS4G.
> I’ve been involved in this personally for a long time, as one of the
> original founders of OSGeo and our Local Chapter, former Board Member
> and Treasurer, and continuing member of this conference committee. By
> being the chair of this event, I’m putting my reputation on the line
> here to put on a great show for the Foundation, it’s projects, and it’s
> members. I hope that can be sufficient to put any concerns about our PCO
> to rest.
> Best of luck to the committee with your deliberations. You have some
> very good proposals and keen LOCs to choose from. No matter what, I’m
> sure OSGeo is going to get a great event in 2017 - we look forward to
> your decision.
>> On Nov 6, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com
>> <mailto:mgt at appgeo.com>> wrote:
>> Thanks for revising spreadsheet based on the input you've received.
>> Just to address the points that Robert and David have raised vis a vis
>> our workshop pricing and the PCO and associated costs.
>> 1. YES, our workshop costs are $100/day. We believe it is important to
>> give attendees the option of having the right number of workshops that
>> fits their schedule (i.e., Monday /and /Tuesday; Tuesday only). That
>> is why our workshop pricing is itemized. That said, it is a good idea
>> to have a bundled and discounted workshop price along with the main
>> conference and we will strongly consider that if we are chosen.
>> 2. YES, we did not include an original, itemized line item for our PCO
>> and our PCO was embedded in the $149K "Production" line item. Based on
>> a question, we presented the $60K PCO price separately. Our $60K PCO
>> price is /all inclusive /and like Philadelphia includes marketing
>> support and other labor activities. We did our research and this
>> pricing is comfortably consistent with successful previous global
>> North American events. And, as shown throughout the proposal process,
>> our full BLOC is prepared to be energetically involved in producing
>> the conference.
>> Boston's PCO approach is different than both Philadelphia's and
>> Ottawa's. We were approached by Location Tech, heard their pitch, and
>> selected a PCO partner that did not require branding and who we felt
>> would best reflect the BLOC's vision for the conference. We
>> consciously gave up the underwriting that Location Tech generously
>> offered and instead chose the formula that has worked for previous
>> FOSS4G global conferences with OSGeo and the LOC directly partnering
>> and sharing risks and rewards. And very importantly, we wanted some of
>> the rewards (i.e., the 20%, or $20k of profits, whichever is smaller)
>> to be reinvested in further building the Boston community through a
>> new OSGeo Chapter.
>> 3. While the spreadsheet is incredibly helpful and I presume will be
>> very valuable to the selection committee there is agreement across all
>> three teams that it does not reflect a pure apples-to-apples
>> comparison. Some significant things differ including:
>> * The anticipated attendance in each city
>> * The PCO approach and underwriting
>> * The allocation approach for profits
>> This is fine and appropriate as the proposals do reflect a variety of
>> legitimate approaches. It just means the numbers in the spreadsheet
>> need to be reviewed with an eye to some of the fundamental choices the
>> committee faces, not just the numbers in the grid.
>> Thanks again for pulling the material together and giving us an
>> opportunity to better explain our proposals. And best of luck in your
>> deliberations and voting.
>> MT & the BLOC
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Dave McIlhagga
>> <dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com <mailto:dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com>> wrote:
>> Some additions from Ottawa:
>> Room Rates - Because we are not tied into a particular hotel, and
>> the event is right downtown - attendees would have flexibility on
>> where to stay. Ottawa rates at the high end for that time of year
>> would be about $175 per night, with many reasonable options
>> available in the $100-$150 range.
>> I’d echo the apples-to-apples comparison issue regarding line
>> items for PCO / Production costs — they are bundled for
>> Philadelphia and Ottawa, de-coupled for Boston.
>> Workshops - same as Philadelphia
>> Maximum capacity is 2,000+
>> Concurrent tracks = 10
>> Wifi = free
>> Venue conditions - none
>>> On Nov 6, 2015, at 1:01 PM, Robert Cheetham <cheetham at azavea.com
>>> <mailto:cheetham at azavea.com>> wrote:
>>> 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 <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions. I have updated
>>> the comparison.
>>> Any other changes?
>>>> On 6 Nov 2015, at 03:53, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com
>>>> <mailto:mgt at appgeo.com>> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>> 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
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>> *Michael Terner*
>>>> /Executive Vice President/
>>>> 617-447-2468 <tel:617-447-2468> Direct | 617-447-2400
>>>> <tel: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
>>> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>> *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).
More information about the Conference_dev