Cameron,<div><br></div><div>I don't see the ultimate decision being with the Board as watering down the Conference Committee at all. I still think that it is the responsibility of the Conference Committee to do the leg work, to review in detail, to work with any proposing groups and to make recommendations to the Board (and possibly even to seek input from the membership). The Board always has the option to disagree with the Committee, to ask them questions, or to throw things back to the Committee for further work. In most cases, I would expect the Board to concur and sign off on the Conf Comm's decisions, but the ultimate authority needs to stop with the Board.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Incidentally, I would really like to see clarification on the role of the Conference Committee with respect to support of events other than the main FOSS4G event. I have to say that it was not clear at all (nor is to this day) what role I should expect the Conference Committee to play in support or review of the activities that we are working on for the NA event in 2013.</div>
<div><br></div><div>David<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Cameron Shorter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" target="_blank">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Dave,<br>
I think you are spot on regarding the importance of conferences
(and FOSS4G in particular) to OSGeo, and as such I think you are
right that the board does need to give conferences much of its
attention.<br>
<br>
However, I think that it would be better to suggest a slightly
different management structure.<br>
Rather than moving conference activities to the board, I'd suggest
that board members should take a more active role in the
conference committee.<br>
There are a few people who are not on the board now, but who I
would strongly welcome participating in a conference committee,
due to their depth of experience with foss4g conferences and wise
advise. (Hello PaulR). By watering down the importance of the
conference committee, I'd expect to see less activity on its
lists, and then less volunteers stepping up to help. And of all
places, I think the conference committee is the place we most need
more volunteers.<br>
<br>
This should be matched by documenting the key decision criteria
that we think is important for a foss4g conference, and following
through on these criteria. (In particular, documenting such
criteria as under what conditions should the conference committee
1. award a conference 2. act as a financial backstop 3. cancel a
conference)<br>
The documentation should be the start of a FOSS4G Cookbook, and I
intend to give it some of my attention in the near future.<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 17/08/12 06:13, Andrew Ross wrote:<br>
</div></div></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div>Jeff,<br>
<br>
For what it's worth - historically FOSS4G has been a source of
revenue <u>and</u> outreach, hasn't it? There's considerable
evidence that a well run event drawing many people and excellent
sponsors tends to be successful on both counts.<br>
<br>
A major conference like FOSS4G is a significant financial
activity. One that carries considerable risk. One sentiment I've
heard many times on lists and in person is that people are
comfortable trusting the board to make the right decision for
such matters. They elected them to do so.<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 08/16/2012 03:59 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi Paul,
It all comes down to the basic purpose of the FOSS4G event. Is it a
revenue generator that in fact is the major source of revenue for OSGeo?
Then for sure, I can see your points. Is it to promote Open Source
geospatial around the world? Then there is no doubt in my mind Charter
members should be involved in this decision.
-jeff
On 12-08-16 4:45 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Jeff,
Your suggestion moves in the opposite direction Dave is proposing.
Dave says the problem is that the conf. committee is relatively
removed from the strategic concerns of the foundation (like financial
issues) and that the board should take a stronger hand. Handing the
decision to the charter membership moves the decision to a population
even further removed from those issues than the conf. committee.
P.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><div class="im"><pre>_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
</pre>
</div></blockquote>
<br><div class="im">
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: <a href="tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050" value="+61285705050" target="_blank">+61 (0)2 8570 5050</a>
Mob: <a href="tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254" value="+61419142254" target="_blank">+61 (0)419 142 254</a>
Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
<a href="http://www.lisasoft.com" target="_blank">http://www.lisasoft.com</a>
</pre>
</div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Conference_dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>************************************<br>David William Bitner<br>
</div>