[OSGeo-Conf] Conference commitete meeting?

till.adams at fossgis.de till.adams at fossgis.de
Tue Jan 12 01:37:17 PST 2016


just my 2 Cents, I focus on Camerons points 1 and 2:

As said earlier, a unification of bid-documents would help a lot here.

- I think it's better to have a smaller confCommittee, but members are 
full active than having everybody in ;-)
- Handbook is a good point for the external "needs" from OSGeo to the 
- In my eyes, personal contact to the former chair(s) is the best I can 
- Also the "Lessons learned" in the WIKI are helpful.

For the past two points, maybe ConfComm should follow up this a little 
more and maybe a mandatory help of the following teams should be part of 
the requested demands for the bid process.

Let me talk a little on these points: We (FOSSGIS e.V., german local 
chapter) organize FOSSGIS conferences for more than 10 years now and I 
know, that much of FOSS4G-Handbook is based on our FOSSGIS handbook. 
Nevertheless, we always have a "Local Team" that cares about local 
issues and changes with the location and we have an existing "conference 
team", consisting of people who have a lot of experience in doing 
FOSSGIS conferences collected over years. I know, that this is more 
easy, as FOSSGIS causes much less work and is much easier to do, but we 
do not re-start again year for year...

Organizing FOSS4G 2016 I my impression is far more challenge than 
FOSSGIS - there are several points, the size, the more professional 
frame and also the always changing regional touch.... But maybe it's not 
enough, that OSGeo's-ConfComm decides who is going to organize the next 
event and from then on does not really care any more ;-). Don't 
understand this wrong, I am happy with that and I am happy, that we have 
this level freedom when organizing FOSS4G, but might be that others 
aren't happy with that so much?

BTW: Don't know, when you plan your meeting, but if you want to we can 
care for a room here in August in Bonn... ;-)

So far, Till

Am 2016-01-11 20:48, schrieb Dave McIlhagga:
> Good points Cameron.
> If I can suggest one more critical piece to number 3 … I think we
> should have a good discussion on whether we should have a consistent
> PCO year to year (regardless of the LocationTech issue). Every year 
> we
> restart a lot of things simply because we have a new organization to
> ramp up every event. A lot of cost and headaches can be saved by
> having the same PCO to work with. Not to mention knowledge transfer
> year-to-year.
> I think making this decision is the first and most important decision
> to make. Once that’s taken care of — then we can look at whether
> Location Tech might make sense as this PCO, or another 3rd party
> organization.
> Dave
>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Cameron Shorter
>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com [3]> wrote:
>> I'd attend a meeting. Also agree that starting conversation on
>> email would be a good way to warm up.
>> A way to focus the meeting might be to step through the current
>> FOSS4G Handbook, collectively approving sections and removing the
>> "Draft - awaiting review" comments.
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook [4]
>> The big items which I think need addressing are:
>> 1. What are the principles we should consider when selecting a
>> FOSS4G conference? Lets write them down. Many of these principles
>> would be derived from OSGeo principles. Others will be more
>> logistical. Both the Handbook and RFP has some of this information.
> https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2017/osgeo-conference-2017-request-for-proposal.pdf
>> [5]
>> 2. How do we transfer knowledge from one conference to the next.
>> The cookbook FOSS4G Handbook is one method. There have been a number
>> of suggestions to consistently use one Professional Conference
>> Organisor, be that a paid person, or a company. Do we want to pursue
>> this?
>> 3. This leads to the sensitive question of "Do we want to consider
>> Location Tech as that PCO?" Location Tech has teamed with
>> unsuccessful FOSS4G bids in the past. I see this as evidence that
>> our community is split on the answer to this question. This is a
>> messy question to consider and make a decision on, but by not
>> addressing it, we are wasting a lot of community energy and
>> goodwill. As such, I see it as our most pressing question.
>> On 11/01/2016 4:32 pm, Eli Adam wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Are people interested in a conference committee meeting? (or
>>> perhaps e-meeting conducted on email over the period of a few
>>> days).
>>> We have a few loose ends that we could address. If people are
>>> interested in a meeting, I'll start a wiki page. I think that we
>>> should discuss and vote on a few motions. Formalizing a few
>>> decisions, adjusting committee membership, discuss RFP revisions,
>>> discuss 2018 RFP schedule (according to this motion we should
>>> start soon,
> [1]http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2014-December/002794.html
>>> [2]).
>>> Are committee members interested in a meeting? Format or time
>>> preference? Items for a meeting?
>>> Be well, Eli
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter,
>> Software and Data Solutions Manager
>> LISAsoft
>> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>> P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org [6]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2014-December/002794.html
> [2] 
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2014-December/002794.html
> [3] mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com
> [4] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook
> [5]
> https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2017/osgeo-conference-2017-request-for-proposal.pdf
> [6] mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list