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

Andrea Ross andrea.ross at eclipse.org
Mon Nov 9 06:15:01 PST 2015

Dear Jeff, & Everyone

Dave & Robert have already explained how the branding will work and how 
OSGeo's branding is not diminished in any way so there's not really much 
I can add.

I would like to touch on something Jeff has said because I feel it is 
important. Jeff, you mentioned "FOSS4G is for the OSGeo community to get 
together". This is a really good thing. It isn't the end of the story 

As you know well, FOSS4G is much more than that. FOSS4G is also a 
meeting for many other projects & initiatives, and many that are not 
OSGeo projects. It is a better conference with all of them present. And 
this is what we're talking about.

FOSS4G can be both the OSGeo community get together, AND a get together 
of the wider FOSS4G community. It can do so without anyone losing. There 
really is nothing to be afraid of.

One last thought, for what it's worth: Think about what attendees, 
speakers, and sponsors want. That's really important in this discussion. 
Without them there's not much to talk about.

Kind regards,


On 09/11/15 14:46, Jeff McKenna wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> I've just had some nasty private messages sent to me now (not by you), 
> threats, of "do you want LT to start their own event? Imagine if 
> companies went there" etc.  I'd like to answer those "threats" here.
> I think we must be sure to keep the spirit of FOSS4G (and those people 
> making the threats are missing the point).  Really, FOSS4G is for the 
> OSGeo community to get together, a "meeting of the tribes".  I don't 
> see a problem with LT starting their own event, would be great, and if 
> big business went there that also would be good, for LT and their 
> members. FOSS4G would continue to be hosted by OSGeo, rotated around 
> the world yearly.
> I'd rather keep this dialogue public, with no private threats made. 
> (but some are too cowardly to speak publicly).  I saw this in my past 
> discussions with LT (where some OSGeo "leaders" chose not to publicly 
> share their own opinions, but would privately disagree with LT 
> influence).
> So I appreciate that you are speaking with me here Dave.  I like your 
> response, I think you dealt with my question well.
> Talk soon,
> -jeff
> On 2015-11-09 9:25 AM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>> I really don’t feel that anything we proposed here suggests OSGeo is 
>> giving up branding at this event. The visibility items for LT are 
>> virtually the same as previous events as we’ve discussed here … a 
>> booth, some sponsor visibility similar to other organizations that 
>> sponsor the event, and a thank you for their organizational support. 
>> All of that is intentionally planned to be below the radar, in a 
>> similar vein to corporate or other organizational participation in 
>> this event so that OSGeo continues to have top prominence with this 
>> being the OSGeo event of the year.
>> On top of this — you significantly increase the outreach to 
>> communities that may not be actively involved in OSGeo, and in fact 
>> may not know what OSGeo is. All of this enhances the OSGeo brand, it 
>> doesn’t diminish it.
>> Dave
>>> On Nov 9, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Jeff McKenna 
>>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Dave,
>>> I have a problem with your proposed "LT visibility items are 
>>> compensation for putting up seed funding, and financial insurance".  
>>> So we are to give up branding for our own event, one that we have 
>>> driven from 2006 with blood, sweat, and tears (a lot of each of 
>>> those), so that another foundation can provide seed funding and 
>>> financial insurance? Why do you feel the need to not allow the OSGeo 
>>> foundation to provide the seed funding and insurance for our own event?
>>> To give a better financial picture of OSGeo, in fact the outlook for 
>>> the foundation has been better: coming off of a successful 
>>> FOSS4G-Seoul event, and as we approach another strong event of 
>>> FOSS4G-Bonn.  I have already heard plans in motion from a strong 
>>> group in the Asia-Pacific region for FOSS4G 2018.  We are running a 
>>> steady balance in our financial accounts at a level higher than ever 
>>> before in the history of the foundation: roughly 300k USD.
>>> It seems like a hard pill to be forced to swallow, losing our 
>>> precious OSGeo branding (that we always have a difficult time 
>>> enforcing even at our one yearly event), for something that we don't 
>>> even need (external seed funding and financial insurance).
>>> -jeff
>>> On 2015-11-08 9:44 PM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
>>>> HI Guido,
>>>> Thank you for the good question.
>>>> First of all I should point out that the $90,000 cost is an at-cost 
>>>> fee
>>>> for provision of these services. Keep in mind they will be doing a lot
>>>> of the open source geospatial leg work that is often handled by the 
>>>> LOC
>>>> volunteers, such as sponsorship recruitment, marketing activities,
>>>> program logistics support, etc...
>>>> In addition, they have agreed to financially backstop the event, 
>>>> ie. put
>>>> up any of the seed funds required to move this forward, and cover
>>>> shortfalls in the worse case that this should take place.
>>>> I think the best way to think of this is:
>>>> 1. The 90,000 is to cover the internal labour costs for LT to provide
>>>> these services, so that the organization will at least be cost-neutral
>>>> in providing these PCO services
>>>> 2. The LT visibility items are compensation for putting up seed 
>>>> funding,
>>>> and financial insurance.
>>>> Another way to think about it — it’s just a good way for two open 
>>>> source
>>>> geospatial organizations to give each other a hand.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Dave
>>>>> On Nov 8, 2015, at 7:15 PM, Guido Stein <guido at guidostein.com
>>>>> <mailto:guido at guidostein.com>> wrote:
>>>>> Dave,
>>>>> 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 event.
>>>>> ----
>>>>> 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,
>>>>> Guido
>>>>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 10:55 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>     Clear to me
>>>>>     ______
>>>>>     Steven
>>>>>>     On 8 Nov 2015, at 15:25, Dave McIlhagga 
>>>>>> <dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com
>>>>>>     <mailto: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 raised.
>>>>>>     *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 event.
>>>>>>     *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 unclear?
>>>>>>     Dave
>>>>>>>     On Nov 7, 2015, at 6:35 PM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com
>>>>>>>     <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>     Dave
>>>>>>>     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’
>>>>>>>     ______
>>>>>>>     Steven
>>>>>>>>     On 7 Nov 2015, at 22:30, Dave McIlhagga
>>>>>>>>     <dmcilhagga at mapsherpa.com 
>>>>>>>> <mailto: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.
>>>>>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>>>>>     Dave
>>>>>>>>>     On Nov 6, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com
>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:mgt at appgeo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>     Steven:
>>>>>>>>>     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:
>>>>>>>>>         Steven,
>>>>>>>>>         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
>>>>>>>>>         Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>         Dave
>>>>>>>>>>         On Nov 6, 2015, at 1:01 PM, Robert Cheetham
>>>>>>>>>>         <cheetham at azavea.com <mailto:cheetham at azavea.com>> 
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>         Steve,
>>>>>>>>>>         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.
>>>>>>>>>>         Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>         Robert
>>>>>>>>>>         ------------------
>>>>>>>>>>         On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:37 AM, 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
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list