[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2018 Draft Request for Proposals document for comment
till.adams at fossgis.de
till.adams at fossgis.de
Tue Sep 20 23:43:03 PDT 2016
Maria,
just one comment on this:
If we as CC claim a maximum conference fee, then OSGeo must definitely
take over full (100%) financial risk.
We can't put all this on the shoulders of LOC's.
Till
Am 2016-09-20 20:21, schrieb Maria Antonia Brovelli:
> Thanks Steven. I agree in giving flexibility in proposing to the LOC
> and that some elements can be considered as plus for voting for one
> or
> another proposal.
> About the cost (personally I prefer cheaper solution) in my opinion
> 650 has to be put as maximum fee and then we have to specify for how
> many days.
> Cheers!
> Maria
>
> Sent from my Samsung device
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
> Date: 20/09/2016 20:02 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> Cc: OSGeo-Conf <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>, OSGeo Board
> <board at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2018 Draft Request for Proposals
> document for comment
>
> Thanks for leading this RfP process Steven. It is a great improvement
> in streamlining over the one I did last year.
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Steven Feldman
> <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I haven’t received many comments on the draft RfP. I hope that
> indicates
> > broad agreement rather than that you haven’t had time to read it
> (it is a
> > good bit shorter than previous years)
> >
> > I have received comments from Daniel and Till which I summarise
> below
> >
> > Change dates to ISO format yyyy-mm-dd (DM, done)
> >
> >
> > The following are from Till:
> >
> > Extend period for submitting full proposals by 2-3 weeks (I am
> minded to
> > extend by 2 weeks which pushes announcement back to 2016-12-19)
> > Should we require the gala event to be included in the conference
> ticket
> > price as has been the practice in recent years or do we wish to
> make it
> > optional to reduce delegate fees? Or do we leave to the LOC as
> currently in
> > the RfP? (my view leave to LOC to decide)
>
> On most things, I think that flexibility for the LOC is better.
>
> > Should the student awards be run by the Academic Track team or the
> Geo4All
> > team? (my view is this should be Geo4All)
>
> We can't really speak for other people and groups. The LOC should
> appropriately delegate this.
>
> > Include a requirement to appoint an OSGeo financial representative
> to the
> > LOC if OSGeo is providing seed funding and a guarantee (I agree
> with this
> > recommendation)
>
> Yes, this is fine to include. It might also be included in the seed
> funding agreement. Maybe we should just add the seed funding
> agreement as an appendix or link reference?
>
> > Should we have a template for the full proposal? It would save
> LOC’s from
> > spending too much money on drafting a fancy proposal. And it would
> imporove
> > comparability of the bids. Alternatively we could make the key
> elements list
> > of the RfP a mandatory structure? (I think this is a great idea
> but
> I am not
> > sure that we have time to do a proper job this year)
>
> Either way is fine. There are certainly benefits for comparing the
> bids, however, then all bids would be in some ways very similar, no
> real dramatic changes if a LOC were inclined to bid something
> entirely
> different.
>
> > Budget template - should we make it mandatory to use our template?
> (I’m not
> > sure, people have their own way of budgeting, once they add in
> lines and
> > columns comparability becomes difficult)
>
> In the past, budgets seem too different. There are some main things
> that get noticed (venue, food, hotel commitments, etc).
>
> > Add a requirement for a risk assessment. What costs arise, how
> many
> months
> > before the event, if you have to cancel. What if your estimated
> income on
> > sponsorship is unrealistic? (Excellent suggestion)
>
> Sounds good but I think that we have to acknowledge the reality that
> FOSS4G is a daunting event with so many late registrations and
> sponsorships and early large expenses. Every year goes through a
> very
> concerned period of time. If our reality doesn't reflect that, then
> this hurts instead of helps. Also, once you articulate the reality,
> then it perhaps seems unnecessary since it includes a period of time
> of high risk.
>
> > Require timing to be September rather than August which is easier
> for the
> > European community (not sure I agree, no time will be perfect for
> everyone)
>
> I prefer LOC flexibility. September bids are more likely to get
> votes
> from me but as we saw in the past, there can be three August bids.
> We'll see how this works out with first attendance numbers from Bonn
> and second Boston. Venues can be tough with scheduling.
>
> > The full delegate fee target of $650 should be for conference only
> (early
> > bird?) with extra charge for workshops (I agree re NA and EU but I
> hope that
> > a RoW event could show us how to run for less)
>
> Sounds reasonable that workshops are extra.
>
> > If an event is proposing to offer a lower cost option we should
> point out
> > that we expect a professional well organised conference (I agree
> but wonder
> > if that needs to be said or should be in the evaluation criteria)
>
> Evaluation criteria and voting seem the more appropriate place to
> apply this. If you are bidding to present *The* Premier Open Source
> Geospatial Conference and don't know this, then you have no chance
> anyway.
>
> >
> >
> > My responses are included in the brackets following each point.
> Unless
> > others disagree strongly I will implement these changes on
> Thursday. I have
> > also corrected a few typos and minor phrasings pointed out by
> Till.
> >
>
> I'm good with any changes how you make them. My general comment is
> that LOC flexibility is a good thing and reflects the reality of how
> these conferences get accomplished.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> > If anyone has more comments or suggestions that they wish to make
> please get
> > them to me by 18.00 GMT on 21st September. Please state whether
> your
> > proposed change is a publication blocker if not incorporated, I
> will do my
> > best to incorporate changes.
> >
> >
> > ______
> > Steven
> >
> >
> > On 15 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > All
> >
> > After several early drafts and wise advice from Cameron and Eli,
> here is the
> > final draft of the RfP document for FOSS4G 2018.
> >
> > A little background to the changes:
> >
> > 1) The old RfP ran out at 58 pages with some long appendices. I
> have reduced
> > the document to 12 pages by pushing the appendix of past reports
> to
> a page
> > on the wiki and by cross referencing as much stuff as possible to
> the wiki
> > (which also ensures that it is more likely to remain current)
> >
> > 2) The document is designed to be as generic as possible. It
> should
> need
> > little change for 2019 etc unless we change major policy or
> processes.
> >
> > 3) The document is structured with all key information and dates
> in
> 2 tables
> > at the beginning which are cross referenced throughout the doc
> >
> > 4) References to delegate prices and concessions have been left
> sufficiently
> > open to allow/encourage bidders to suggest innovative models
> >
> > 5) There is specific reference to the availability of seed finance
> and the
> > expectations of return to OSGeo if we provide funding.
> >
> > 6) In the past we had a complex voting system which required
> committee
> > members to rank all proposals. We did not actually use that voting
> system
> > and each member voted for one proposal. I have proposed a 1st and
> 2nd choice
> > system (2nd choices are only used if there is a tie at the 1st
> vote
> stage)
> >
> > Please comment on the RfP by 18.00 GMT on Wednesday 21st, I need
> to
> > integrate any changes before publishing the RfP on 23rd.
> >
> > Board members if you have any comments could you please post into
> this
> > thread on Conference list rather than the board list.
> >
> > Potential FOSS4G bidders should be aware that this draft is
> subject
> to
> > community comment and possible revision
> >
> > May the FOSS be with you
> > ______
> > Steven
> >
> > <FOSS4G2018-request-for-proposal-Final.pdf>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Conference_dev mailing list
> > Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [1]
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev [2]
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list