[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] FOSS4G 2018 Draft Request for Proposals document for comment
venka.osgeo at gmail.com
Wed Sep 21 02:13:22 PDT 2016
Page 7, mentions
"it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will
be donated to
I was wondering if donating back 85% of surplus to OSGeo was mentioned in
the previous RfP's. There was a discussion at the CC f2f in Bonn 
a lower expectation of the share of surplus being returned to OSGeo when
FOSS4G is organized in/by communities of the Low or Lower-Middle Income
Economies. I wonder if that can be mentioned in the RfP.
Page 9 mentions,
"The last two conferences have been held in the month of August,
previously conferences and some continuity
Could be changed to
"Past FOSS4G conferences have been held during August-September period
and some continuity is desirable."
On 2016/09/21 3:21, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:
> 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.
> 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:
>> 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
> 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
>> 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
>> 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.
>> On 15 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Conference_dev