[OSGeo-Conf] Conference reports 2015 & 2016 for inclusion in RfP 2018

[Cameron Shorter]

Extending on Eli's comments. As most content is simple variable changes, 
such as year changes, if you can achieve it without too much work or 
loosing readability, I'd encouraging pulling all variables up to the top 
of the document. Then re-issuing the RFP will be much easier year on year.

I'm all for:

* Keep it Simple

* Keep it Generic

* Keep it easy to maintain and easy to read (by keeping it concise)

* Do the hard work once and avoid re-doing it every year

Warm regards, Cameron

PS, thanks Steven for pulling all this together, I really appreciate the 
extra mile you are going to get it right.

On 7/09/2016 2:05 AM, Eli Adam wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have done a quick copy and paste to create this rough page
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Past_FOSS4G_Reports
>>
>> I have applied some simple formatting to 2014 - would anyone like to pick
>> this up and tidy up 2004-2013? Note that tables haven’t come over as tables
>> but the main content is there.
>>
>> Sanghee and Till could you update the page with reports from 2015 and 2016
>> (when you have had your wrap up)
>>
>> Questions for all on this list:
>> 1) should we be gathering any other info?
>> 2) should we separate out the FOSSGIS reports and other non FOSS4G reports
>> or does this provide a more useful resource if all are combined?
>>
>> I have put a link to this page into the Handbook in the See also section
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#See_Also should it be there or
>> somewhere else. i have also put a link to the Reports on the main Conference
>> page
>>
>> I intend to redraft the RfP over the next few days - my aim is to trim it
>> down to 13-15 pages with links to the Handbook and the Reports given
>> priority over loads of text, are there any other resources that I should
>> include?
> When I revised a previous RFP, I thought that we might want to leave
> the PDF format.  We could go to something like html from markup or
> something else like this.  A lot of the edits you make will be simple
> year changes, url changes, etc.  Some of that could be addressed with
> just editing variables.  If nothing else, looking at a previous year
> diff might make it fast and easy to make the current year diff.  Or we
> could remove the year specific information and write a general
> document.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>> Following our face to face the brief for a RoW event will be slightly
>> different to a NA or European event, I intend to combine both in one
>> document rather than creating different version for RoW etc. Does anyone
>> have a different view.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>>
>> On 5 Sep 2016, at 22:12, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to putting 40 pages of past reports online and not including in RFPs.
>>
>>   I think we should consider going further and respecting the time of people
>> responding to RFPs. What is worth reading in 10 years worth of event
>> reports?
>>
>> Ideally, we as past chairs should be refining what we have learned, and
>> presenting a more concise set of guidelines. (Dare I mention the FOSS4G
>> Handbook.) This handbook can reference back to source material such as
>> Lessons Learned and foss4g reports.
>>
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook
>>
>>
>> On 5/09/2016 10:47 AM, Peter Batty wrote:
>>
>> Hi Steven, I don't know whether / where they are hosted online, but if they
>> aren't there already I think they should be put up somewhere, and I think it
>> would make sense to link to them (and any other relevant extra material) and
>> reduce the length of the RFP.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>      Peter.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In the past the RfP docs have included an appendix with all of the
>>> Conference Reports from past chairs - the last one in the 2017 RfP was the
>>> 2104 report.
>>>
>>> Some questions:
>>> 1) are these hosted online somewhere?
>>> 2) the RfP has grown very long at nearly 60 pages with 40 of those pages
>>> being past reports. Should we host the reports online and link to them
>>> rather than include in RfP?
>>>
>>>
>>> ______
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> M +61 419 142 254
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254