[OSGeo-Conf] [OSGeo-Discuss] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some continuity of organization and management

Steven Feldman shfeldman at gmail.com
Fri Feb 18 08:10:50 PST 2022 

Some thoughts on a way forward based on my experience of running global and local events and participating in almost a decade of conference committees:

A local team has to have ownership of their event even if OSGeo provides admin and/or financial support. It is a positive of our community that every global FOSS4G finds its own way and character.
Some systems should be mandated for continuity (eg the mailing database, the call for papers system and possibly others), OSGeo should maintain and fund these systems.
Other tools used by the LOC should be selected by the local group
The financial structures for running a FOSS4G are unclear and potentially chaotic and unsustainable. I am not sure why any group of volunteers would accept the financial risks of contracting with venues, PCO’s, caterers etc. 
OSGeo has to accept full financial and legal responsibility for its global event and in return needs to have close to full financial control and to receive most of the surplus (suggest 10% of the surplus should go to the local community).
All contracts should be between OSGeo and the provider.
To ensure financial control and prudent decision making OSGeo needs a representative on the LOC who controls the cheque book and has to be consulted on any material financial decisions (i.e. signing of contracts and purchase orders)
In the past we considered employing someone to act as a resource ce for global events, not quite a PCO but an events person with some experience of our community. Perhaps we should consider recruiting a part time events person to support our annual event (and possibly other regional events) responsibilities could include:
Finances and financial reporting to the board (or conference committee?). This person would be OSGeo’s representative on the LOC
Negotiation of contracts with venues and other contractors
Support to the LOC as needed to alleviate the load on volunteers
Running OSGeo conference systems (as above)
Assisting conference committee in the selection of the annual global event
Maintaining an events calendar for any regional or local events using the FOSS4G brand to ensure that conflicts are avoided
Maintaining the community memory of best practice so that we do not reinvent the wheel unnecessarily.
Other tba
A London based full time person would cost ca $50,000 so I imagine we could recruit a part time person for $30-40,000

I would hope that having a clear financial structure where OSGeo owns its conference and partners with a local group to stage the event plus provides a part time resource with events (and FOSS4G) experience would attract more interest form local communities.
______
Steven

Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org/>

Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>” newsletter

> On 18 Feb 2022, at 14:03, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) <bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:
> 
> All,
>  
> Not sure if these comments are helping all that much based on the focus so far, but . . .   :c)
>  
> I’ve pondered these type of questions in the past, and I think that for the community to be successful at this, that the local organization, OSGeo chapters, etc. need to be better supported for setting up a local event.  There needs to be a bit more formalization of OSGeo at the local level in order for the local hosting interest to materialize.  There needs to be a centralized component of planning to all events, as well as a local component for fielding venues and reservations of event aspects.  I might even go so far as to say that an event should require, at a minimum, a local chapter(s) sponsor and involvement, even if it/they only exist temporarily during the event.
>  
> By splitting the duties this way, the centralized side of the planning has better options for leveraging experiences from past events and passing that experience on to the local organizers and the local organizations get a better step up, or quick start to planning an event.  I n the near term, I can see this limiting options some, but it might also be thought of as a good way to start and stabilize local chapters of OSGeo over the long run.
>  
> Bobb
>  
>  
> From: Conference_dev <conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:conference_dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>> on behalf of "eadam at co.lincoln.or.us <mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>" <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us <mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>>
> Reply-To: "eadam at co.lincoln.or.us <mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>" <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us <mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>>
> Date: Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 11:02 PM
> To: "conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>" <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] [OSGeo-Discuss] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some continuity of organization and management
>  
> Think Before You Click: This email originated outside our organization.
>  
> Hello all,
>  
> It has been two weeks on this poll and we have heard from 7 of 19 voting members or 37%.  63% have not responded.  
>  
> Till, Peter, David B, Maria B, Vasile, David F, Gavin, Claude, Venkatesh, Paul, Msilikale, and Mark have not responded (or I missed it).  Do any of you have an opinion on this matter?  
>  
> Some of the best ideas and contributions to the conference committee have come from non-voting members and that remains a possibility.  In my mind Jeroen has provided valuable insight on conferences for ten years or more.  I greatly value that.  The focus on voting members is to try to get responses and that the conference committee has had difficulty operating and is sometimes unwieldy.  If the voting members are unable to operate (or even decide if they want to try operating on something), then we don't have to waste time on it.  
>  
> Best regards, Eli
>  
>  
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 1:25 PM Bruce Bannerman via Discuss <discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:discuss at lists.osgeo.org>> wrote:
>> Well said Sanghee.
>>  
>> As a former member of the LOC for FOSS4G-2009 I agree with the local community development argument, though in our case it led to a lot of burn-out.
>>  
>> There is also the practicality of finding a conference organiser that can operate effectively anywhere in the world.
>>  
>> Should the alternate approach go through, significant thought also needs to go into the procurement process to avoid the very real potential for corruption.
>>  
>> Kind regards,
>>  
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>>> On 9 Feb 2022, at 01:28, 신상희 via Discuss <discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:discuss at lists.osgeo.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all, 
>>>  
>>> I prefer option 1. 
>>>  
>>> If this poll was asked just after FOSS4G Seoul 2015, I would have selected option 2 without any hesitations. 
>>>  
>>> However I now realize that I, LOC members, and local community had learned a lot by going through the difficulties of preparing the event altogether. That experience was very unique, invaluable and is now one of driving force of vibrant activity of OSGeo Korean chapter. Community driven FOSS4G with help from PCO is not so bad model, I think. 
>>>  
>>> Kind regards, 
>>> 신상희
>>> ---
>>> Shin, Sanghee
>>> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
>>> www.gaia3d.com <http://www.gaia3d.com/>
>>>  
>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>> From: "michael terner" <ternergeo at gmail.com <mailto:ternergeo at gmail.com>>
>>> To: "Steven Feldman" <shfeldman at gmail.com <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>>
>>> Cc: "OSGeo-Conf" <conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>>; "OSGeo Discussions" <discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:discuss at lists.osgeo.org>>; "Massimiliano Cannata" <massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch <mailto:massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>>; "Eli Adam" <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us <mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>>
>>> Sent: 2022-02-06 오전 6:09:42
>>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some continuity of organization and management
>>>  
>>>> +2 for considering change
>>>>  
>>>> There's definitely room to consider continual improvements for the conference process, as the world, and our community has evolved considerably over the last few years. No easy solutions, but lots to think about.
>>>>  
>>>> Eli starting this thread with an "informal poll" makes complete sense. The Committee is simply doing it's job of helping the Board to manage and promote the conference activity. We don't get to make decisions by ourselves, but generating ideas is certainly part of the mandate. And, as others have said, if the board disagrees with a proposal/idea, they do not have to approve it.
>>>>  
>>>> MT
>>>>  
>>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022, 6:02 AM Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com <mailto:shfeldman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> +2 from me 
>>>>>  
>>>>> Everyone is welcome to participate in the conversation about changes to the organisation of FOSS4G, then the Conference Ctee should vote and make a recommendation (or recommendations) to the Board and the Board should decide.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Our organisational model is that the charter members elect the board and the board then makes decisions on their behalf, if CM’s don’t agree with board decisions they have the option to vote in a new board, we do not have a direct voting or referendum system where CM’s are consulted on individual decisions.
>>>>> ______
>>>>> Steven
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org <http://mappery.org/>
>>>>>  
>>>>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild <http://eepurl.com/dKStT-/>” newsletter
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 4 Feb 2022, at 09:01, Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net <mailto:jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Hi Maxi,
>>>>>> Thanks! I completely agree with those type of changes indeed. It makes sense we have a list of scenario’s forward and have a vote on that by the community. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For what the membership of the conference committee is concerned, I left simply because of the supposed/imposed barrier of not having been a conference chair, although I didn’t agree with that at all. Didn’t feel like fighting over it though. It would be better to make membership voluntary just like other committees. Possibly approved by the board or charter members. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Jeroen
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Error! Filename not specified. <https://www.geocat.net/>
>>>>>> Jeroen Ticheler
>>>>>> Mobile: +31681286572
>>>>>> E-mail: jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net <mailto:jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net>
>>>>>> https://www.geocat.net <https://www.geocat.net/>
>>>>>> Veenderweg 13
>>>>>> 6721 WD Bennekom
>>>>>> The Netherlands
>>>>>> Tel: +31318416664
>>>>>> On 4 Feb 2022, 09:02 +0100, Massimiliano Cannata <massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch <mailto:massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>>, wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear Jeroen,
>>>>>>> Thanks for your considerations.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> I wasn't proposing to extend the evaluation of proposals to the whole community. I understand a dedicated committee should do this (even though I believe a part of the evaluation of a proposal could be assigned by votes of the community, maybe 10%?).
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> My point is that decisions of changing the organisation of the FOSS4G cannot be done without the involvement of the whole community. It's not about changing the evaluation process, it's about deciding for example to have a fixed location, to completely leave it to an external company, to pay the committee members to do it, to have it online or in person, to cancel the global and keep only to local conference...
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Another point is that so far there's the assumption that only organizer of previous FOSS4G have the competence to understand technical matters. That's quite aleatory and in no other committee there is such an entry barrier... If you didn't play in NBA you cannot be a good coach? Can a government self-elect his members? What about innovation, new ideas and other experiences, or we're just close in our FOSS4G past events experience... Because only if you run a global conference you have the competence...
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Sorry to be long, and this is not personal at all, I just like being inclusive and have empowered participatory approach..
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>> Maxi
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Il gio 3 feb 2022, 17:04 Jeroen Ticheler <jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net <mailto:jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net>> ha scritto:
>>>>>>>> Hi Maxi,
>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing your view on this. Although I sympathize with the idea of a whole community having a say in how conference locations is selected and organized, I’m not in favor of the process you propose. Reading LOI’s and full proposals takes a lot of time and voting a lot of thought and discussion. It really helps to have previous conference organizers on the committee as well. At the same time I also think the committee should be open to other members (I used to be a member long time ago while I never chaired a conference, and I don’t think that mattered honestly). 
>>>>>>>> Concluding, I think selecting a conference / proposal should be taken care of by the committee, not by all charter members or the whole community. Maybe the board or the charter members should decide for an elected committee similar to what we already do with the board elections. 
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Jeroen
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> Error! Filename not specified. <https://www.geocat.net/>
>>>>>>>> Jeroen Ticheler
>>>>>>>> Mobile: +31681286572
>>>>>>>> E-mail: jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net <mailto:jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net>
>>>>>>>> https://www.geocat.net <https://www.geocat.net/>
>>>>>>>> Veenderweg 13
>>>>>>>> 6721 WD Bennekom
>>>>>>>> The Netherlands
>>>>>>>> Tel: +31318416664
>>>>>>>> On 3 Feb 2022, 16:15 +0100, Massimiliano Cannata <massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch <mailto:massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>>, wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear conference community,
>>>>>>>>> why is the community left out from this decision / discussion?
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> The FOSS4G conference is a property of OSGeo, and therefore of the community as a whole.
>>>>>>>>> The conference committee has not been elected so cannot decide in representation of the community.
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> As an OPEN community I strongly believe that all the charter members (at least) should have a word or vote on such an important decision.
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> I hope this message is not ignored..
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> Maxi
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> Il giorno gio 3 feb 2022 alle ore 15:04 Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us <mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>> ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all (particularly voting committee members),
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> The current FOSS4G structure has a new LOC every year starting more or less from scratch (some things like mailing lists and seed money are passed on).  Over the years, many people have commented on the load of work this creates for the LOC, the general inefficiency, the risk, and the burnout.  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> If you consider yourself a voting member of the committee (https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members>), please indicate your preference on this.  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> This is an informal poll to see if the conference committee wants to:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Keep it the way it is and not change anything
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Change the FOSS4G organizing structure to something else (discussion of what we change it to can come later if people want to pursue this).  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> As I've expressed several times, I prefer option 2, changing the FOSS4G organizing structure.   
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your time and participation.
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, Eli
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Massimiliano Cannata
>>>>>>>>> Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
>>>>>>>>> Responsabile settore Geomatica
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> Istituto scienze della Terra
>>>>>>>>> Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
>>>>>>>>> Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
>>>>>>>>> Campus Mendrisio, Via Flora Ruchat-Roncati 15
>>>>>>>>> CH – 6850 Mendrisio
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14
>>>>>>>>> Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
>>>>>>>>> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch <mailto:massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>
>>>>>>>>> www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
>>>>>  
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>_______________________________________________
> 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/20220218/19b1a90b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Conference_dev mailing list