[OSGeo-Conf] Call to discuss FOSS4G 2017 proposals prior to voting
guido at guidostein.com
Sun Nov 8 16:15:07 PST 2015
I have questions based on your LT visibility plan:
What we have proposed for LocationTech visibility is as follows:
1. Recognition as a Sponsor for Conference Organization.
2. Booth at the Exhibition Hall
3. Acknowledgement of LocationTech’s PCO services at plenaries, similar to
how GITA in Denver, and AGI in Nottingham were recognized.
The above we feel is in line with their offer to financially backstop the
Sponsorship and booth space are a major source of revenue for the
conference. The value of sponsoring this conference is currently set
between 3,000 and 30,000 thousand euro's.
In your proposal your cost for your PCO, was stated as 90,000 USD. One of
the services that your PCO, LocationTech, offers is to give you a "financial
backstop". So, since sponsorship/visibility is valued between 3,000 to
30,000 euros, is that cost of sponsorship built into the cost of your PCO,
meaning the complete cost for the PCO is between 93,000-120,000 USD with
the cost of sponsorship paid in-kind, or does LocationTech plan to pay
their sponsorship dues, or does locationtech get free sponsorship and get
paid 90,000 USD?
Thanks for your clarification on this,
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 10:55 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Clear to me
> On 8 Nov 2015, at 15:25, Dave McIlhagga <dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com> wrote:
> Hi Steven and Jeff,
> I do realize that the relationship with LocationTech as PCO is a bit of a
> departure from previous events, and as such I want to be sure we are very
> clear on how this will translate in the areas of concern that have been
> *1. Branding*
> The event will be banded as "FOSS4G 2017 Ottawa, Hosted by OSGeo”, in line
> with all previous OSGeo annual FOSS4G events. To be clear this will not be
> the same as FOSS4G-NA which is run differently.
> What we have proposed for LocationTech visibility is as follows:
> 1. Recognition as a Sponsor for Conference Organization.
> 2. Booth at the Exhibition Hall
> 3. Acknowledgement of LocationTech’s PCO services at plenaries, similar to
> how GITA in Denver, and AGI in Nottingham were recognized.
> The above we feel is in line with their offer to financially backstop the
> *2. Finances*
> We are committing to a significant payment as outlined in our proposal
> should the conference run a surplus. Specific amounts are specified based
> on sample surplus thresholds met. And OSGeo does not carry any financial
> risk if the event fails to make money.
> I believe we’ve outlined each of the fee areas in the proposal, but if
> there are any specific questions about line items, please let me know so we
> can clarify.
> *3. Coincidental Text between Philadelphia and Ottawa*
> The reason for the similar text in our proposals is a result of both
> organizations choosing to work with a PCO who is highly knowledgeable about
> open source events, and open source geospatial events in particular. We
> relied on them to help us in venue selection, sponsorship program, and many
> other areas they have intimate knowledge about, particularly with recent
> experiences with FOSS4G-NA. Neither LOC was about to re-write just so they
> could look different. They simply made sense and were based on better
> knowledge than the LOCs themselves had.
> Does that clarify things, is there anything in the above that remains
> On Nov 7, 2015, at 6:35 PM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
> You say “for the sake of clarity and transparency ...” I may be a lone
> voice here but I don’t fee that there is clarity or transparency about the
> relationship between the Ottawa and Philadelphia bids and Location Tech.
> Several questions and concerns have been expressed regarding branding,
> finances, influence, the coincidences of identical sections of text in both
> bids etc. From my personal perspective I do not have ‘clarity’
> On 7 Nov 2015, at 22:30, Dave McIlhagga <dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com> 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> 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>
>> 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
>> 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> 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>
>>> Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions. I have updated the
>>> Any other changes?
>>> On 6 Nov 2015, at 03:53, Michael Terner <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
>>> - *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>
>>>> 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
>>> *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.
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> 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.
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conference_dev