[OSGeo-Conf] OSGeo Booth

Thu Sep 3 06:45:35 PDT 2015

for us it's already done:
http://2016.foss4g.org/

I hope that's visible enough ;-)

Till


Am 2015-09-03 15:43, schrieb Steven Feldman:
> 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 [4]> 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
>> [5]
>> 2010: "Hosted by" in sidebar with OSGeo logo and link to osgeo.org
>> [6]
>> 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
>> [7]> 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 [1]> 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 [2]
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org [3]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
> [2] mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> [3] mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> [4] mailto:b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk
> [5] http://osgeo.org
> [6] http://osgeo.org
> [7] mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com