[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
though.
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,
Andrea
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