[OSGeo-Conf] Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Eli Adam eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
Thu Aug 31 16:02:11 PDT 2017

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:
>> Dear Conference Committee,
>> (as not finally voted, but last nominated chair of this committee I start
>> this process before nobody else does ;-))
>> I just chatted with Steven, and we'd like to get the 2019 RfP in motion
>> ASAP. Writing this, I aready started and created a WIKI page (see link
>> below). I think for the RFP the most important point is the timetable. In
>> comparison to past calls, I tightened the timetable a little (e.g. 14 days
>> for questions instead of a 21 day period), so that we have the chance to get
>> a decision by mid of december.
> Let reason not arbitrary dates drive the schedule.  That being said, I
> think that your timeline is reasonable.  Consider your own personal
> schedule and the AoE timezone and budget an extra day for you to do
> work where needed.
>> Feel free to comment and/or edit:
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2019_Bid_Process

I updated, http://www.osgeo.org/conference/rfp, pointing to the wiki
page.  I also stamped "Draft" at the top of the wiki page.  Remove it
when you're ready.


> I did some light editing.  Perhaps review my assumptions/corrections.
> The major change I made pertained to announcing a result.  We may
> announce the results of our voting but we don't actually select the
> LOC and FOSS4G location, we pass it to the Board to approve it.  You
> may want to coordinate dates with the Board so that they have a
> meeting 1-3 days after our result so that they can approve it and then
> it is official.
>> We also have to include the suggestions of the board Venka recently sent.
>> Regarding them, I see no problems with adapting Venkas points a - e and g,
>> point h depends on time but might be critical, because we are already little
>> late.
> a) OSGeo AGM not in parallel with sessions is a good idea.  Lunch, or
> late afternoon after sessions but before evening events sounds good.
> I believe that technically the AGM is without cost and open to
> everyone.
> b) Prohibition on BYOD should be removed
> c) Add "at FOSS4G" to "OSGeo Community Events" seems unnecessary since
> it is in a FOSS4G RFP and everything is at FOSS4G.  It is an easy
> change so might as well do it.
> d) ""Hosted (or Presented/Produced) by OSGeo" need to be mentioned in the
> conference website." is micromanaging and I'd prefer to not get into
> specific words on the website but this could be added to the existing
> Conference Naming section of the RFP:
> Conference Naming
> The conference name will be “FOSS4G <city name> <year> hosted by
> OSGeo”. Other variants of the name may
> be considered, for translation purposes.  Include this on the website.
> e) Replace "Rest of the World" with "Other Regions" based on agreement
> on mailing list.  This is a good idea and should be done.  It is on my
> list to make proper motion so that this is official policy of the
> Conference Committee, OSGeo, and FOSS4G.
> f) see below
> g) Seems good, should update the wiki with this
> h) good idea if time permits.
>> I'd like to suggest a more comprising section instead of Venkas point f:
>> Venka writes:
>> f) Page 11 mentions "We hope to keep cost per participant under $650 USD for
>> the conference
>>> plus workshops."
>>> I (Venka) am not aware of how the affordability discussion went on at f2f
>>> in Boston. However a
>>> more specific statement could be better for the 2019 RFP. e.g.
>>> "We strongly recommend to keep the cost per participants under $XXX USD
>>> (early bird) and
>>> $YYY USD for the conference and workshops."
>> I'd like to replace the sentence in question by:
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Please be aware, that a global FOSS4G is OSGeo's major event and that it
>> should be open to as many participants as possible. One major factor are the
>> overall costs of the conference-visit for potential attendees.
>> We suggest to keep conference fees per participant under $650 excluding
>> costs for workshops and the social event. The experience of the past years
>> has shown, that the social event is one major part of a FOSS4G, so we
>> suggest to include the social event in the overall conference package.
>> Please line out:
>> - whether you are able to hit our expectations of a max conference fee of
>> $650 or if not, why and whether it will include or exclude the main social
>> event
>> - costs for accommodations around your place from basic to premium (I think
>> this is included anyhow)
>> - give us a hint on the general living costs such as averaged costs for a
>> meal/drink/public transport and so forth
>> - describe briefly how you will enable especially financial weak persons to
>> attend your conference (e.g. student helper programme, pre-reservation of
>> especially cheap accommodations, collect money on top of travel grant
>> programme funding from OSGeo, [your ideas], etc.)
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> I think we must see the overall costs - low fees and high accommodation
>> costs or even high costs for drinks may also exclude many people from FOSS4G
>> or from one of the most important parts of a FOSS4G: Socializing (having low
>> fees of e.g. $400 does not help anybody jumping into our community, when a
>> beer costs $8 and he/she is not able to join other participants in the
>> evenings....)
> I'd like to not add a bunch of words or restrictions on the LOC.  LOCs
> endeavor to make FOSS4G as cost effective as possible.  I think that
> prices will remain about the same.  There is the possibility that
> someone who thinks dramatically differently about prices figures out a
> way to do it and submits a bid.  When we have such a bid, I'm sure
> that it will receive votes.  Realistic low cost bids is how the price
> will change.  Or a dramatic change in OSGeo finances such that OSGeo
> sponsorship goes up substantially and FOSS4G can be run at a loss as
> an outreach event.
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Finance_Operational_Notes#Historical_Overview
> In my opinion, the current wording is already sufficient:
> Cost for attendees
> o We hope to keep cost per participant under $650 USD for the
> conference plus workshops.
> o We would welcome innovative approaches that can offer more
> affordable options to
> delegates. These might include differential pricing, alternative
> venues, reduced catering costs,
> changing dates or excluding the cost (or part of the cost) of social events.
> o Note: please include all prices in USD in your proposal, and please
> specify a currency date in
> your proposal (e.g. USD 2015-07-01).
>> Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference dates:
>> I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
>> should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or maybe also
>> cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also know,
>> that there have been some problems for people attending the conferences in
>> 2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe we can
>> also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
>> conference in August?
> We can comment that September is the preferred time frame but bids
> will still bid what works.  September has higher venue prices.  You,
> even in Europe, found that August was the best option.  For 2017 we
> had three bids all in August.  I think that many Conference Committee
> members will preferentially vote for September dates but those are not
> what LOCs are finding is reasonable to bid.  If anything, this
> September goal runs counter to the low cost goal above.
> Before we start the RFP process, I'd request a member freeze on the
> committee until after the final decision.  If we are making voting
> member changes to the committee, these should be completed before we
> start the RFP process.  See also,
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Membership
> When we get to motions, please use the process:
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Decisions
> Thanks for doing this Till.  I'm looking forward to helping a little bit.
> Best regards, Eli
>> Please also comment on this as well!
>> Regards, Till
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list