[OSGeo-Conf] Finalisation of RfP-Document for RfP FOSS4G 2020

[Till Adams]

Hi Steven,

thanks for finishing the document!

I totally agree in the fact, that on the one hand we can't increase our
requirements more and more, on the other hand we want to keep the price
as low as possible. Somewhere there has to be a balance and this is
lived by the LOCs.

As long as the bidders clearly describe how they deal with the
individual things, the final decision lies with the selection of the
proposal and with that, it is still in the hands of OSGeo.

So I would leave the video section(s) as they are and finish the
document *now*

Till



Am 14.09.2018 um 11:09 schrieb Steven Feldman:
> I have cleared the last few comments and hopefully have resolved the
> AGM and the member meeting in a way that will acceptable to the board.
> I think we are making clear to bidders that they need to provide space
> for these events *within* the programme. 
>
> When we award the event to a LOC I think we should draft a formal
> letter of award that includes a list of conditions which could include
> approval of the scheduling of the OSGeo AGM etc.
>
> The funding of video recording is going to have to be left unresolved.
> At the moment all that we are saying is that we want recording and
> that OSGeo “may” provide a loan. The provision of recording is quite
> contentious amongst recent chairs:
>
>   * Prior to Bonn there was no large scale video recording to my
>     knowledge. At Nottingham we had Audio recording
>   * Bonn set a very high standard thanks to the team of external
>     specialist volunteers who took on the task
>   * Boston did an incredible job using home built systems but it was
>     an enormous strain on the LOC and the volunteers to get this done.
>     An external team would have cost close on $100k I believe (MT?)
>     and that would have added $80+ to the ticket price or eliminated
>     most of the surplus returned to OSGeo
>   * Dar only recorded the keynotes and some sessions in the main hall,
>     I believe that this was due to a combination of cost and
>     organisation (MI?)
>
>
> People outside of the LOC are always keen that the proceedings are
> recorded and made available to a wider audience, I understand why. The
> LOC may well be concerned at the cost of hiring in a professional team
> to record up to 9 streams of content or the administrative burden of
> trying to record using an in-house team of volunteers. 
>
> I’d prefer to leave recording as a strongly desired but not mandatory
> requirement (also seek clarity on whether all sessions will  be
> recorded) and remove the section on an OSGeo loan as that will make
> matters more complex. Others will have a different view. We need to
> make a decision and get the RfP out. I can edit the video sections of
> the RfP once there is a decision.
> ______
> Steven
>
>
>> On 14 Sep 2018, at 08:49, Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de
>> <mailto:till.adams at fossgis.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I tried to resolve all the comments in
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ltOnAoiFSTl7ERdlFKUvx-Jh9eDpVQgEn4AoCIp4SE/edit?ts=5b9a347f#
>>
>>
>> and ended up with 2 remaining.
>>
>> One is a discussion between Steven and Maria regarding length and
>> scheduling for AGM, the other one is a comment of Cameron regarding the
>> potential funding of the video recording.
>>
>> Can the people I named please resolve these comments? After that we can
>> export the document and ask somebody who knows how to to load it into
>> the SVN and send the link. Afterwards I will kick the call out.
>>
>> Many thanks to all contributions!
>>
>> Till
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20180914/43b1478d/attachment.html>