[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] MOTION : Conference Committee - Updating Membership Policies and Process

Wed Sep 21 14:47:41 PDT 2016

Venka

The 85% is part of the agreement for providing seed funding which was adopted in 2015 (I think) to formalise previous ad hoc arrangements, it is set out in the Handbook. This may be the first year that we have clarified the availability of seed funding and the conditions within the RfP. The facility has been used by Bonn and Boston.

I have adjusted the para on page 7 to incorporate the lower expectation for Low or Lower Middle income countries without setting a specific expectation

I have amended the timing para on page 9 as you suggested

Thanks 
______
Steven

> On 21 Sep 2016, at 16:48, Darrell Fuhriman <darrell at garnix.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Page 7, mentions
> 
> "it is expected that in the region of 85% of any surplus generated will be donated to
> OSGeo."
> 
> 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 [1]
> 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
> is desirable."
> 
> Could be changed to
> 
> "Past FOSS4G conferences have been held during August-September period and some continuity is desirable."
> 
> Best
> 
> Venka
> 
> 
> 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.
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev