[OSGeo-Conf] Comments on Philadelphia 2017 proposal

[Robert Cheetham]

Michael,

Thanks for sharing the Boston story.  It speaks well to the Boston geo
community.

On the other points, allow me to respond below:


> 1. *Volunteer fatigue:* I've seen that mentioned several times - Robert
> uses the term "burned out volunteers" - but can that be taken as universal
> fact? Perhaps Boston is idealistic, but that's not necessarily what we've
> observed and several of us have served in various capacities on volunteer
> driven conferences. There's no doubt that the amount of work that goes into
> a conference takes a toll, but from our vantage there are many positive
> residual effects on the hosting community. Indeed, one of the drivers in
> Boston pursuing the event is to strengthen our geo open source community
> for the long haul. In addition, we see continued, significant volunteerism
> from many, many people (including most on the "conference_dev" list) who
> have participated in running past conferences. As we see it, the lesson
> learned is that a strong PCO *is required* to help with the logistics and
> take some of the load off of the LOC itself. Indeed, all three 2017
> proposals have such a PCO partner.
>

I have not suggested that volunteers have no role or that volunteerism is
something to be discouraged.  Clearly, like you, I have already volunteered
a bunch of my own time, as have other members of the Philadelphia OC, to
the bid effort, and, if either of our bids is successful, we'll be putting
in a pile more.  But I have heard repeated stories of volunteer burnout
when there was no PCO involved.  I agree that a strong OC is critical to a
strong conference and could not agree more that the conference will be
richer and better with local volunteers involved.



> 2. *2016 FOSS4G North America bids: *As has been observed, FOSS4GNA has a
> very different (and new) structure, and also for 2016 a very different
> venue selection process (i.e., no LOI, no proposals from interested host
> cities). I would guess I may not be the only one who was a little surprised
> to read that: "Philadelphia worked with LocationTech to put together a
> bid for the FOSS4G-North America 2016 event and was short-listed." Indeed,
> no bids were solicited from anyone except from hotel/conference venues that
> Location Tech identified (there is an extensive thread on this subject on
> the foss4gna_selection listserve [Google group]). Rather, as per the
> process, Location Tech conducted an "venue RFP" and then announced the
> short-list based on their *internal* decision making (without receiving
> proposals from LOCs). Indeed, many people in Raleigh - ultimately, the
> winning location - were unaware they were even being considered until the
> short-list was announced by Location Tech. I don't doubt at all the
> Philadelphia and Location Tech worked together on the Philadelphia "bid", I
> just think it needs to be acknowledged it was a very different kind of bid,
> and process (i.e., there's no Raleigh or Philadelphia "proposal document"
> from an LOC).
>

Regarding the FOSS4G-NA process, you are correct that it is a different
process.  The development of that process happened in an open forum, and
while I do not personally agree with every aspect, I think that's normal;
it was compromise that resulted from consensus.  However, it is a different
process, and I'd suggest that it's irrelevant to this discussion.  I was
simply describing how we came to consider putting Philadelphia's hat in the
ring for this event; to wit, we leveraged previous legwork we'd done
regarding venues and logistics, and this current effort evolved from past
collaboration with LocationTech.


>
> 3. In Andrea's recent post there seems to be an implied assertion that
> only Location Tech can potentially *broaden the conference* to include
> other participants. Indeed, it was acknowledged that this has happened to
> some degree already with the current model. The FOSS4G agenda is *not* only
> about FOSS4G projects. In addition, the Boston proposal talks extensively
> about "broadening" participation including specific outreach activities
> aimed at the Boston/New England startup and technology (non-geo)
> communities. The point is, this is a choice for OSGeo and the Philadelphia
> and Ottawa proposals are not necessarily the only way to attract new
> participants and sponsors to FOSS4G.
>
>
I did not read Andrea's post as an implied assertion that LocationTech is
the only way to broaden the impact of FOSS4G.  I think such an assertion
would be silly.  We (the Philadelphia team) think it is a partnership that
makes sense for the Philadelphia bid (and Ottawa obviously felt similarly)
in terms of developing a high quality event.  You made a different
decision, and I think that's great too.  I think both can be successful,
and I also think there is a universe of other collaborations that could be
successful alternatives.  Each FOSS4G event has taken strides in this
direction, and I'm confident that the scope of the open source geospatial
ecosystem will continue to grow with both the 2016 and 2017 events.

Robert

------------------


On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com> wrote:

> OK, this thread (actually two threads) are moving really fast and while I
> intended to have this post cover just the "Boston's story" perspective, I
> do believe it is appropriate for Boston to comment on some of the other
> issues that have been raised on the other "Call to discuss..." thread.
>
> Philadelphia and Ottawa have told their story so it seems appropriate for
> Boston to tell ours as well:
>
>    - Boston has had a thriving "geo community" through various meetup
>    groups (e.g. AvidGeo and Maptime) but has never had an OSGeo chapter.
>    - Increasing numbers of people in the community have been to FOSS4G
>    events (both global and North American) and have felt the energy.
>    - Boston is known as a great "conference town" and has a somewhat
>    unique blend of academia, government and high tech and we knew it could be
>    a great venue.
>    - Several of us began informal discussions to study the OSGeo
>    selection process and to see what it would take to mount a bid.
>    - To assess interest, and also to understand whether there were any
>    dissenting opinions, we issued a broad-based letter of explanation and
>    survey to the Boston geo community with the local meetup groups sharing
>    their mailing lists. Our basic questions were: Is this a good idea? Could
>    we get it done?
>    - Over 100 people took the time to respond to the survey, and the
>    response was overwhelming support and interest.
>    - In the survey, we asked who would be interested in volunteering at
>    the event and who would be interested in joining and "organizing
>    committee". Through the survey we had 17 people volunteer to be on the
>    Boston Location Organizing Committee (BLOC). Another 20 people relayed
>    interest in "volunteering at the event" (if we were successful in bringing
>    it to Boston).
>    - We then conducted four BLOC planning meetings as we initially
>    submitted the LOI and then built the full proposal. Inevitably, some people
>    were not able to volunteer their time and did not make any of the planning
>    meetings, and they were not included in the final BLOC. And, as described
>    in the proposal we have a very strong and experienced BLOC and we also have
>    BLOC members who have taken leadership on some of the sub-committees and
>    wrote sections of the proposal document.
>    - We had always planned to have a PCO and did some research on PCO's
>    who had worked at other FOSS4G events in North America. During the process
>    and as part of the Q&A on the LOI we were encouraged to look at *local* PCO's
>    and we reached out to Delaney Meeting & Event Management. Cindy Delaney was
>    excited by the prospect and volunteered some of her time to help us address
>    key questions and to get good bids from hotels and conference venues. Many
>    of us have known Cindy for a long time through her work with other New
>    England-based geo events and she immediately added value to our team.
>    - And then we submitted our proposal to host with a committed set of
>    hands-on, local volunteers and a strong and experienced PCO.
>    - We are ready for the next chapter of this story and we want to make
>    both OSGeo and Boston proud. But, win, or lose, we know we have built a
>    great team and put in a strong proposal and vision that we're all proud of.
>
> While we agree there are some fundamental issues that the selection
> committee faces (see below), we also ultimately agree that this is *not* just
> about the kind of PCO that helps with 2017. We know that Boston is one of
> three very strong proposals that were prepared with great thought, care and
> effort. The proposals deserve close reads and scrutiny across the full
> variety of ideas presented.
>
> Now, we'd like to raise a couple of questions/comments on two things that
> Robert has brought up and also on Andrea's latest comment to the thread.
>
> 1. *Volunteer fatigue:* I've seen that mentioned several times - Robert
> uses the term "burned out volunteers" - but can that be taken as universal
> fact? Perhaps Boston is idealistic, but that's not necessarily what we've
> observed and several of us have served in various capacities on volunteer
> driven conferences. There's no doubt that the amount of work that goes into
> a conference takes a toll, but from our vantage there are many positive
> residual effects on the hosting community. Indeed, one of the drivers in
> Boston pursuing the event is to strengthen our geo open source community
> for the long haul. In addition, we see continued, significant volunteerism
> from many, many people (including most on the "conference_dev" list) who
> have participated in running past conferences. As we see it, the lesson
> learned is that a strong PCO *is required* to help with the logistics and
> take some of the load off of the LOC itself. Indeed, all three 2017
> proposals have such a PCO partner.
>
> 2. *2016 FOSS4G North America bids: *As has been observed, FOSS4GNA has a
> very different (and new) structure, and also for 2016 a very different
> venue selection process (i.e., no LOI, no proposals from interested host
> cities). I would guess I may not be the only one who was a little surprised
> to read that: "Philadelphia worked with LocationTech to put together a
> bid for the FOSS4G-North America 2016 event and was short-listed." Indeed,
> no bids were solicited from anyone except from hotel/conference venues that
> Location Tech identified (there is an extensive thread on this subject on
> the foss4gna_selection listserve [Google group]). Rather, as per the
> process, Location Tech conducted an "venue RFP" and then announced the
> short-list based on their *internal* decision making (without receiving
> proposals from LOCs). Indeed, many people in Raleigh - ultimately, the
> winning location - were unaware they were even being considered until the
> short-list was announced by Location Tech. I don't doubt at all the
> Philadelphia and Location Tech worked together on the Philadelphia "bid", I
> just think it needs to be acknowledged it was a very different kind of bid,
> and process (i.e., there's no Raleigh or Philadelphia "proposal document"
> from an LOC).
>
> 3. In Andrea's recent post there seems to be an implied assertion that
> only Location Tech can potentially *broaden the conference* to include
> other participants. Indeed, it was acknowledged that this has happened to
> some degree already with the current model. The FOSS4G agenda is *not*
> *only* about FOSS4G projects. In addition, the Boston proposal talks
> extensively about "broadening" participation including specific outreach
> activities aimed at the Boston/New England startup and technology (non-geo)
> communities. The point is, this is a choice for OSGeo; and the Philadelphia
> and Ottawa proposals are not necessarily the only way to attract new
> participants and sponsors to FOSS4G.
>
> Again, best of luck in the call today, and in the voting over the week to
> come...
>
> MT & the BLOC
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Robert Cheetham <cheetham at azavea.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Conference Committee,
>>
>> As Steven re-raised the question on the meeting logistics thread, I
>> thought I'd elaborate on our PCO selection process on the Philadelphia
>> thread.
>>
>> First, let me say again, that there was no collaboration between the
>> Ottawa and Philadelphia bids.  Any common text arises from the fact that we
>> worked with the same PCO and inevitably used text provided to us where it
>> made sense.
>>
>> Based on Dave's description of how they came to develop a bid, it sounds
>> like we had different stories.  Allow me to tell ours.
>>
>> Philadelphia worked with LocationTech to put together a bid for the
>> FOSS4G-North America 2016 event and was short-listed.  As you know, we were
>> not successful at winning the conference, and FOSS4G-NA 2016 will be held
>> in Raleigh next spring.  However, we had done a lot of legwork and decided
>> to leverage this effort toward a more ambitious bid to bring the larger
>> FOSS4G global event here.
>>
>> Philadelphia hosted the OSGeo Code Sprint in Feb 2015.  We promoted this
>> as an event that invited developers from both OSGeo and LocationTech
>> software projects.  The result was work on OSGeo projects, LocationTech
>> projects, and developers that work on projects housed in both
>> organizations.  It was fruitful.  At the end of the day, the objective of
>> both organizations is the development of a stronger geospatial open source
>> ecosystem, and working together on building better software is the reason
>> most of us are involved to begin with.  Further, we had more sponsors than
>> any previous OSGeo Code Sprint (including a cash sponsorship from
>> LocationTech).  Most of the new sponsors were from companies that are
>> members of LocationTech.
>>
>> When we made a decision to invite the Eclipse Foundation to help us with
>> 2017 FOSS4G bid, we felt like it was a pragmatic decision at multiple
>> levels:
>>
>>  * Many past FOSS4G events that relied on volunteers resulted in burned
>> out volunteers - we didn't want to rely on a volunteer team to run the
>> event.
>>
>>  * A collaboration with the Eclipse Foundation, another open source
>> software foundation, would likely result in a whole that is greater than
>> the sum of the parts.  FOSS4G has never solely been about OSGeo projects;
>> the event has always invited open source geospatial projects of all kinds.
>> By including a second open source geospatial organization in the effort, we
>> would have a greater likelihood of expanding the diversity of projects,
>> people, partners, and sponsors that will be the key to a successful event.
>> Eclipse is more than just a PCO, they are fellow open source geospatial
>> collaborators, and I believe that's a good thing.
>>
>>  * At a personal level, I prefer to view the world in terms of potential
>> non-zero sum outcomes.  Providing LocationTech with a booth and some kind
>> of logo on the web site does not diminish the OSGeo brand.  Similarly,
>> OSGeo's success does not diminish the younger LocationTech's short-term or
>> long-term prospects.  A bigger, healthier open source geospatial ecosystem
>> benefits all of us.
>>
>> We invited LocationTech and the Eclipse Foundation to serve as PCO
>> because we felt that the result would be a better event and a richer open
>> source geospatial ecosystem.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *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
>
>
> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or
> legally privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or
> otherwise authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy,
> distribute, disclose or take any action based on the information contained
> in this e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this message and
> material in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
> delete this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics, Inc.
> (AppGeo).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20151109/940efe7c/attachment-0001.html>