[OSGeo-Conf] OSGeo Booth

Steven Feldman shfeldman at gmail.com
Thu Sep 3 06:43:34 PDT 2015


Well said Barry

Conf Cttee shall we make that a request for 2016 and a requirement thereafter?
______
Steven


> On 3 Sep 2015, at 10:18, Barry Rowlingson <b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> I've also noticed a decline, or at least a wild variability, in
> prominence of "OSGeo" on FOSS4G web site front pages:
> 
> 2007: "Presented by" + logo and link in sidebar.
> 2008: [CSS broken?]
> 2009: "Hosted by" in sidebar with OSGeo logo and link to osgeo.org
> 2010: "Hosted by" in sidebar with OSGeo logo and link to osgeo.org
> 2011:  OSGeo mentioned in text, "...is brought to you by" + logo and
> link in footer
> 2012: [No conference]
> 2013: "OSGeo's Global Conference" in main title. Logo in carousel. "is
> a production of" + logo and link in footer
> 2014: "is a production of the OSGeo organization" in text of footer
> with link. No logo at all.
> 2015: Mentioned in box at bottom. "Proudly hosted by OSGeo. Organized
> by OSGeo Korean Chapter" in footer. No logo, no link.
> 
> Only 2009, 2010 and 2013 have the OSGeo logo "above the fold" (ie
> visible on my screen without scrolling)
> 
> Surely OSGeo should have at least as much website prominence as the
> top sponsors? For Nottingham, I think I wanted the "OSGeo's Global
> Conference" tag line to be used for Nottingham 2013 to stress that
> this wasn't a regional event and that it was an OSGeo event. Perhaps
> that tag line should be encouraged?
> 
> If FOSS4G really is "Proudly hosted by OSGeo", then OSGeo really needs
> to stop being so shy about it...
> 
> Barry
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:50 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
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 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)
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> But I feel that it is the OSGeo Conference Committee that can solve this.
>>> 
>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20150903/9fea7782/attachment.html>


More information about the Conference_dev mailing list