[OSGeo-Conf] Call to discuss FOSS4G 2017 proposals prior to voting
Andrea Ross
andrea.ross at eclipse.org
Tue Nov 10 08:22:12 PST 2015
Dear Venka,
Sure, I am happy to answer.
For Ottawa, Dave McIlhagga asked me if we would be willing to help. We
were and the rest is history. There's a bit of an interesting back story
there that Dave outlined about why they chose LocationTech over a few
local PCO's. Even the local organizations recommended Dave & team choose
LocationTech when they heard what was on offer.
For Philadelphia, same thing with Robert Cheetham as the lead. Robert
explained the connection with FOSS4G NA already. The deadlines for
FOSS4G 2017 letters of intent was right on top of the decision the
FOSS4G NA 2016 site selection. It was a tough choice but Raleigh was
chosen (the committee can provide details if asked I'm sure). Robert
rallied the team to turn things into a 2017 bid and asked for our help
which we were happy to provide.
For completeness, we were also in contact with Boston and offered the
same thing to Michael, Guido, & the team in Boston. They politely
declined and shared they chose to use a different PCO, which is totally
fine of course.
It's really not my place to express a preference between the bids &
especially between Ottawa & Philly. I am sure the team in Boston will do
a fine job. That said, if you haven't seen what my colleagues can do for
an open source conference, you're missing out. Anne Jacko in particular,
our conference manager, has been running big open source conferences for
many years and is really incredible. She's one of those force of nature
people who really knows her stuff and keeps trying to get even better
every time.
Kind regards,
Andrea
On 10/11/15 16:13, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Perhaps a little too late to ask, but can Andrea or someone with
> Location Tech please enlighten me as to why Location Tech choose to be
> associated as PCO in two bids? Does Location Tech as an organization
> have any preference between the two bids which are more or less
> identical contents with only a change in geographical location and LoC?
>
> Thanks in advance for the answers.
>
> Venka
>
> On 2015/11/10 17:13, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> All,
>> There is clearly tension amongst some within the OSGeo community
>> regarding the relationship between OSGeo and Location Tech. Jeff,
>> Andrea, I suggest it would help if we stick to discussing specific
>> points (on public lists) and be careful not to imply a slur on someone's
>> character.
>>
>> It is true, Location Tech covers a similar role to OSGeo and there is
>> potential for Location Tech to attract mind share, sponsors and
>> developers away from OSGeo. This is a conversation we should have, and
>> I'd encourage the board to lead such a conversation. (Please change
>> title of email thread if you respond).
>>
>> However, I feel it is inappropriate to exclude FOSS4G bids due to their
>> decision to associate themselves with Location Tech. If association with
>> Location Tech was to be considered detrimental, then it should have been
>> made clear during the bidding process.
>>
>> Let us select the city based on the merits of each bid.
>>
>> One lesson which seems to be coming out of this discussion is that it
>> might help to set clearer guidelines on what we want from a foss4g
>> conference, which will help in providing an unbiased selection.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>> Cameron
>>
>> On 10/11/2015 4:40 am, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>> 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