[OSGeo-Conf] OSGeo Booth

till.adams at fossgis.de till.adams at fossgis.de
Tue Sep 1 23:24:58 PDT 2015 

Hi Jeff, @ConfC

I totally agree with you and as Steven said, it might be part of a 
(hopefully for both sides satisfying) agreement about liability for 
2016. We on our side have enough space, although we for the moment only 
requested a smaller area for exhibition - which also is expressed on our 
very careful assessment of sponsorships. We can raise the space to what 
we need (but have to pay for it) straightforward.

Of course, space costs money, but in the other side I totally agree 
with you about what OSGeo offers to LOC's. So we have foreseen an OSGeo 
and also FOSSGIS booth anyhow.

In one thing I also agree with Eli: A big, bigger, biggest booth isn't 
the only thing that counts. You must have staff, material and so on. I 
think a good visible booth with "enough" space might do the job as well. 
What "enough" is, must be dealed between LOC and somebody from OSGeo who 
cares for the marketing stuff (;-)).

BTW: On FOSSGIS conferences we always have one booth for FOSSGIS e.V. 
as well and that one is not smaller/larger than the others.

Just my 2 cents. And in Korea we can discuss about "size" and "space" 
;-)

Till





Am 2015-09-02 01:45, schrieb Helena Mitasova:
> I completely agree that the booth requirement should be included in
> RFP. Same with the advances and guarantees.
>
> Helena
>
> P.S. Any news on where FOSS4G NA will be held?
>
>> On Sep 1, 2015, at 6:50 PM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> This shouldn't be a touchy subject. It should be a mandatory 
>>> requirement on bidders for a FOSS4G
>>
>> I consider it already an unwritten requirement.
>>
>>>
>>> My suggestion - the organisers should provide a space of similar 
>>> size and specifications to that offered to top level sponsors in a 
>>> prominent location. OSGeo should be responsible for fitting out the 
>>> stand and staffing it
>>
>> An overly large booth is a drawback, not an advantage.  You want a
>> "full" booth.  You can make it full with furniture, displays, 
>> people,
>> etc.  Empty booths look bad.  OSGeo should be provided with a booth 
>> of
>> size and space that they can appropriately fill.  I recall the 2011
>> OSGeo booth looking great in Denver; large, prominently visible at 
>> the
>> end of the hall, a default hangout location for people (I think that
>> it had couches), busy, full, etc.
>>
>>>
>>> If the conference committee agree we can make this a requirement 
>>> for bidders for 2017 (and we can request it from 2016 as part of the 
>>> guarantee agreement)
>>
>> Agree.  Let's have time to discuss it a while then if everyone 
>> agrees
>> (or those who voice an opinion support it), I'll update the 2018 RFP
>> and commit to SVN.  I think that this has been a unwritten 
>> requirement
>> that was never formalized.  I'm trying to add all the unwritten
>> requirements to the RFP as written requirements so we don't have
>> surprises with unwritten requirements.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I suggest that we also require bidders for 2017 and beyond to 
>>> provide details of any advances and guarantees that they require with 
>>> supporting schedules as part of their proposals
>>
>> Agree.  If others agree, then we can add this to the RFP as well.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>> +44 (0) 7958 924101
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On 1 Sep 2015, at 21:36, Jeff McKenna 
>>>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Conference Committee,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to discuss something, that, in all honesty is a very 
>>>> touchy subject, as there never seems to be a good time to discuss 
>>>> this (I may offend current local committees, past local committees). 
>>>> So, this is a disclaimer: In this message I am not referring to any 
>>>> past or current FOSS4G.  I am merely needing to explain the issue, 
>>>> so we can possibly handle this for future events.  And I realize 
>>>> that the experienced Conference Committee members will know the best 
>>>> way to handle this from now on.
>>>>
>>>> Each year I must contact the FOSS4G local committee and ask about 
>>>> an OSGeo booth.  Now, the local committee has to please its sponsors 
>>>> and attract more sponsorship revenue and there is a lot of pressure 
>>>> on them for this reason.  (OSGeo is never classed as a sponsor) Yet, 
>>>> here is OSGeo, the host of the event, the foundation who awarded the 
>>>> team the event, the foundation who provided the necessary seed money 
>>>> a year in advance, the foundation who gave the local committee the 
>>>> spotlight, and so on...asking for a booth as well.
>>
>> So long as sponsors are not stuck in a "bad" booth, I don't think 
>> that
>> they care what booth OSGeo has.  I would avoid giving OSGeo the 
>> "best"
>> booth in whichever class selected.  That way you can point out to
>> people who complain about their booth that we selected a "worse" 
>> spot
>> for our own booth.  Also, with last minute sponsors signing up it is
>> very helpful to have one flexible booth.  In addition to a booth,
>> OSGeo can get visibility in non-booth ways, like logos on signs, 
>> etc.
>> Where you put OSGeo logos is not limited.  Again Denver did a great
>> job of this in 2011, very visually prominent and large and full but 
>> at
>> the end of the hall so to get there must walk by all the other 
>> booths.
>>
>>>>
>>>> On my (OSGeo) side, I want a large prominent booth; I do not want 
>>>> OSGeo to be given a small booth away from the main exhibition area, 
>>>> facing a wall etc.  In fact, sure, I want OSGeo to have a 
>>>> double-booth, we want to be seen, to show that 'hey yes we are 
>>>> hosting this event, we are great, we do great things'.
>>>>
>>>> The reality is that there is no requirement to give OSGeo a booth, 
>>>> as it is not mentioned in the FOSS4G RFP.
>>>>
>>>> If it is not in the RFP (and here is where my tongue gets tied 
>>>> always) should I be asking the OSGeo Board for approval to become a 
>>>> platinum sponsor, of our own event, so we can get a great booth?  
>>>> Imagine that reaction.   Then, what happens is I instead ask for a 
>>>> booth to the local committee, and they often do their best to give 
>>>> OSGeo a booth.
>>>>
>>>> My question is: should the OSGeo Conference Committee be including 
>>>> the OSGeo exhibition booth as a requirement for hosting FOSS4G, by 
>>>> adding this to the RFP; or should the OSGeo Board be looking at ways 
>>>> to become platinum sponsors for FOSS4G as well?
>>>>
>>>> I really feel that this should (well it is) become a requirement.  
>>>> If it is written in the RFP then this pressure is removed.
>>
>>
>> RFP requirement makes sense to me.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Does the OSGeo booth hurt the event's bottom line? (less sponsor 
>>>> space etc., less sponsor revenue)  Yes this does open a can of 
>>>> worms, back to the focus/priority/goal of FOSS4G. And I also am 
>>>> acutely aware of OSGeo's lack of marketing committee and materials 
>>>> (it is funny how I/we are asking for great booth space, and yet we 
>>>> don't have professional marketing materials, I realize the irony 
>>>> here).  Even still, this needs to be discussed openly.
>>
>> No, an OSGeo booth does not hurt the bottom line.  It is not going 
>> to
>> impact the price of the space in any noticeable way and so long as 
>> it
>> is planned for, then it does not displace paying sponsors.
>>
>>>>
>>>> But I feel that it is the OSGeo Conference Committee that can 
>>>> solve this.
>>
>> We can probably solve getting the booth.  Filling it with people and
>> marketing material is another matter.  In 2014, the LOC recognized
>> that our local chapter was fully busy with FOSS4G and sent a call 
>> out
>> to our two neighboring chapters (and OSGeo discuss) to run the 
>> booth.
>> That mostly worked.
>>
>> Eli
>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for understanding,
>>>>
>>>> -jeff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> Helena Mitasova
> Professor at the Department of Marine,
> Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
> and Center for Geospatial Analytics
> North Carolina State University
> Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
> hmitaso at ncsu.edu
> http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/
> "All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which
> are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public
> Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.”
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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