[OSGeo-Conf] Call to discuss FOSS4G 2017 proposals prior to voting
Jeff McKenna
jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Mon Nov 9 09:40:42 PST 2015
Hi Andrea,
Your consistent use of words like "fear" doesn't change anything. I am
asking you publicly questions and you are not answering, so who is the
fearful one? The discussion is dealing with a topic head on, if you
think it is "muck" I do not, as it involves the OSGeo community and a
topic ever so important to it, OSGeo's one global FOSS4G event each year.
I am glad you did speak finally here, I knew you were watching ever so
closely, I tried to get you to discuss more, but instead you use strong
fancy words and go away. Thank you though, for your precious time and
words.
-jeff
On 2015-11-09 1:23 PM, Andrea Ross wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> You imply too much. I asked what it was you wanted to talk about because
> I felt someone from that meeting would be embarrassed if the full
> details, more than in the minutes, were revealed. I'm trying to keep
> discussions professional and classy.
>
> It's clear the discussion is being dragged into the muck, and I'm not
> going to participate in that decline. Politics of fear are easy.
> Politics of vision and inspiration, and collaboration are hard, but so
> much better and worth it.
>
> Andrea
>
>
> On November 9, 2015 5:18:03 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff McKenna
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrea,
>
> I see that you have asked me offlist for more information before
> speaking openly. I take that as an answer.
>
> Could you explain here why LocationTech and Eclipse foundation are not
> interested in creating your own conference, and not stepping directly on
> OSGeo's toes for our one event that we have worked on since 2006? I
> think your own event, moving around the world to all of your members,
> would be an excellent thing for your foundation. Is it the effort
> involved? Or is it the "Google" mentality, where why building something
> from scratch when we can purchase an existing entity and avoid all that
> building?
>
> If your concern is the bad effect on OSGeo, please don't worry. FOSS4G
> is about the community. The spirit of FOSS4G is alive and strong (you
> witnessed the passion at FOSS4G-Seoul first hand). Could some speakers
> and companies only attend the
> LocationTech conference, of course! That
> will happen, and it will help grow your foundation. Will FOSS4G survive
> without any outside influence, yes of course! That will also happen,
> and OSGeo will happily host FOSS4G all around the world every year,
> whether it is a 150 people event or a 1000 people event.
>
> That our one FOSS4G event has become so attractive to business and
> foundations is nothing new. I constantly get packages in the postal
> mail from conference companies and cities from all over the world.
> OSGeo has turned the yearly global FOSS4G event into a million dollar
> revenue event. It is all thanks to the OSGeo community, local chapters
> of all sizes located all around the world.
>
> I think OSGeo has and always will focus on our local chapters, and our
> local communities. And with our annual FOSS4G event, we have been doing
> a great job on that.
>
> Talk soon,
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2015-11-09 10:46 AM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>
> Hi Andrea,
>
> I am glad to speak publicly on this topic together. I will tell you
> directly that OSGeo's one yearly event is in fact hosted by
> OSGeo, for
> the OSGeo community. You are right that the OSGeo community wants to
> learn of projects that are under the OSGeo umbrella as well as those
> that are not, and those projects and foundations can of course
> submit
> abstracts for presentations and workshops.
>
> I would like your permission to speak openly now (finally) and
> let the
> entire community know of what was said during our face to face
> meeting
> in FOSS4G Portland. I would like to share what was said there,
> publicly, so that everyone can understand the full picture.
>
> Let me know if I can proceed openly. Thanks,
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
> On 2015-11-09 10:15 AM, Andrea Ross wrote:
>
> 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
>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list