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

[Eli Adam]

Hi all,

It sounds like the committee is interested in looking at changing the
organizing structure of FOSS4G.  This is a complicated subject, do we want
to make a plan for how to approach this?  Maybe layout a process and
timeline with milestones?  Maybe have someone facilitate the process?  In
the past, some of these topics have been facilitated and distilled by
Cameron or other people which seemed to make it easier for the committee to
stay on track and function.

Many people have already suggested great ideas; listing different tasks
that could be completed by the LOC or institutionalized and centralized.  I
know from my experience on the LOC, I would prefer to spend my time
promoting the event locally, connecting with regional sponsors, promoting
the call for papers, arranging the program, making food and geography
guides to the local area, and guiding attendees to a feel of Portland than
negotiating venue and food contracts, securing insurance, and other such
things.  While these are all great ideas, I think it might be worth pausing
and deciding how we want to approach this process before delving into the
details where we might get lost.

Vasile just issued the extension to the RFP.  None of our work will be
rapid enough to change anything for LOCs bidding for that.  Should we pause
this discussion until after the LOI or conclusion of the RFP process to
keep focus on that and not create confusion of what the process will be?

Best regards, Eli



On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 3:24 PM Luca Delucchi <lucadeluge at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks Michael, your set up a list of good points to keep in mind
>
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 at 20:12, michael terner <ternergeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>    - *Financial Involvement by OSGeo *
>>       - Sharing the risk beyond providing advances
>>       - Active *work* to help insure the financial health of the
>>       conference
>>       - Human being from OSGeo paid to oversee the process and
>>       help/mentor LOCs
>>          - It is OSGeo's largest fundraiser, and as such OSGeo should
>>          actively invest in success (and share more of the risk)
>>
>> I fully agree, I think OSGeo should be the entity signing directly the
> contracts with all interested bodies in the conference
>
>>
>>    - *Shared Systems*
>>    - Call for papers and program submittal review
>>          - Community voting
>>
>> since this year we have it https://talks.osgeo.org/ (thanks to SAC)
>
>>
>>    - Registration
>>
>> we could do the same af talks installing pretix on our infrastructure
> (we, as Firenze LOC, didn't ask this because we need to use the PCO one)
>
>>
>>    - Website platform/framework
>>       - Conference Mobile App
>>
>> Using pretalx a good choice is to use
> https://github.com/EventFahrplan/EventFahrplan
>
>>
>>    - Partnering/technical approach for online video, and archiving when
>>       it is needed/required
>>          - This can be a very large cost
>>
>> Venueless is really chip and strong enough to support hybrid conference.
> It is possible to send stream for most of the provider so venues can
> provide their own stream
>
>>
>>    - Etc.
>>
>>
>>    - *Sponsorship*
>>       - Outreach to previous/recurring and global sponsors, including
>>       maintaining "the list" of who to communicate with
>>       - Coordination, and guidance to LOCs for recruiting new local
>>       sponsors, and being introduced to global sponsors
>>
>> yes, this year we try to merge and clear few lists, we will provide a
> final one at the end of the conference
>
>
>> With these things covered, there is still *plenty *of work to be done
>> and unique value to add:
>>
>>    - *Setting the vision*
>>    - *Setting the program*
>>    - *Promoting the conference to ensure strong attendance*
>>       - The hosting region generally supplies the large majority of
>>       attendees
>>    - *Generating new in-region sponsors*
>>    - *Coordinating with the OSGeo team*
>>    - *Involvement with all the systems*
>>       - The systems may be chosen, but it is the local team that
>>       develops website content; identifies program tracks; *uses* the
>>       registration system on a daily basis; etc. But, the team doesn't have to go
>>       through the effort and angst of selecting and, if necessary, paying for
>>       those systems.
>>    - *Recruiting and activating local volunteers to help make the
>>    conference run and be successful*
>>
>> I suggest to add also Travel Grant too
>
> I believe this discussion has been very productive and it will be
>> interesting to see what the next steps are now that it appears that a
>> strong quorum has chimed in.
>>
>> MT
>>
>>
> --
> ciao
> Luca
>
> www.lucadelu.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220225/b85cf79b/attachment-0001.html>