<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hi Cameron and Maxi,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks for the quick feedback on this.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The decision (ie who makes it) I think here is less of the issue than the actual process itself.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Does anyone else feel that we could do a better job here if we scrapped this competitive LOC process and instead worked to compare potential cities/countries and make a decision this way?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">FOSS4G-NA has worked this way for several years, and it seems like a much more collaborative approach to making a decision, instead of the bureaucratic RFP-like process we’ve put in place that really locks us in to a pre-set path.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Dave</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 31, 2016, at 1:44 AM, Massimiliano Cannata <<a href="mailto:massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch" class="">massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><p dir="ltr" class="">Dear all<br class="">
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">I see the current process quite fine with conf com evaluating the proposal and the board confirm or eventually override the rank given.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">The only thing i can suggest is to have a transparent process of evaluation in the sense of having well defined evaluation criteria justified by voting members. <br class="">
E.g.: Not only my vote for A but for A-prices: 7 out of 10 with short motivation.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">In this way results are transparent and easier to be understood. </p><p dir="ltr" class="">Cameron, i think that saying that if you didn't run a big conference you are not eligible for voting is deeply wrong.<br class="">
It is like excluding users from PSC because are not developers. Diversity of visions and ideas and point of view brings often innovation and improve the processes. </p><p dir="ltr" class="">Maxi<br class="">
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Il 30/Mag/2016 23:52, "Cameron Shorter" <<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" class="">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>> ha scritto:<br type="attribution" class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><p class="">Dave,</p><p class="">I like where you are going with this email thread.</p><p class="">I'll expand to say that making an informed decision about FOSS4G
city selection involves:</p><p class=""> 1. A significant time studying proposals</p><p class="">2. Significant experience understanding the complexities running
a conference (as experienced by prior foss4g committees)</p><p class="">Unless board members have been involved in running a conference
they would likely need to defer to expertise of others in making a
FOSS4G decision. <br class="">
</p><p class="">Volunteer effort is thin in both the conference committee and the
board committee (to the level required to understand a FOSS4G
proposal). I agree with Dave about outsourcing this work. <br class="">
</p>
As it stands, I think the conference committee is better qualified
to make a better decision on FOSS4G selection. But board input
should be welcomed.<br class="">
<br class="">
Warm regards, Cameron<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="">On 31/05/2016 1:11 am, Dirk Frigne
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<pre class="">Dave,
Thank you for your mail.
It is very informative, and I will put a topic on the next board meeting
on June, 9. I think the points we should discuss at the board level are:
1. What does the board expect from the conference committee, so it can
make a right decision.
2. What is the vision of the board concerning the most important event
of OSGeo.
It is clear FOSS4G (main and side events) become more and more important
to outreach to new potential members, and to connect and 'energise' the
current members. Almost every week there is a FOSS4G event somewhere on
this planet. It should be great to have an overview list of all the
FOSS4G events taken place in the last 10 years. I've seen a slide by
Till about the global FOSS4G events with the number of attendees, but an
overview of all the events would give a good insight in the importance
of the movement.
I will be in Bonn and open for a face2face meeting with other members of
the committee to discuss these topics.
Dirk.
On 30-05-16 16:07, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<pre class="">Steven,
First of all - I think this committee has done a lot of really good and
very important work over the years, so for everyone here please don’t
take any of this as a criticism of the work that’s been done in the
past. I think we’ve done the best we can with what we’ve had to work
with and the mandate of the committee.
Note: I’ve cc’d the board here as some of this needs to be discussed at
the board level not just within this committee.
I have a few areas of concern that I think are worth a discussion here:
1. *Who Decides?*
I believe we need to separate out the “Doing” from “Decisions” —
Committee’s are put in place to handle the _/workload/_ that would be
too onerous for the board, and to make decisions that individually have
_/relatively low impact on the organization as a whole/_. The Board is
responsible for making the _/decisions that will have significant impact
on the organization/_.
With that in mind — my suggestion here is that regardless of the process
we go through to decide on locations for future events, organizing
committees, timing etc.., (more on this below) the board should be
making the ultimate decision on the annual event, if for no other reason
than it’s financial impact on the organization. Any event could have +/-
$100,000 impact on the organization, and this today is the primary
source of funding for OSGeo. By definition, that makes this decision the
most important decision OSGeo makes every year.
Having said that — as we all know here, there is a ton of leg work that
precedes making this decision — and that’s where the work of this
committee should be focused. If this group can be in the business of
_running and managing_ the process of putting on the conference each
year, and _advising_ the board on options, pros/cons, etc.. ie. helping
the board to make an informed decision, then we’re doing our job as a
committee. Then the board can make this key decision based on the
direction the board is taking the organization. Is fundraising
important? Is hosting the event in places OSGeo is strong important? Or
maybe in places it’s weak and wants to grow? Depending on budget plans
and many other factors — the answers to these questions can be quite
different.
2. *Selection Process*
I feel that the competitive process we’ve established that was arguably
well suited for the early days of OSGeo (it was definitely a step
forward from yours truly choosing - which was the process pre-OSGeo) —
has run it’s course. With the amount of experience we have under our
collective belts, and the size of the events we’re dealing with, why do
we every year need to more or less start from scratch, and waste
valuable community volunteer time in competition rather than doing
something collaboratively?
A very simple example of where the current process fails to meet OSGeo’s
needs is the proposed dates from the most recent selection process.
Every proposal suggested an August date for the event … why? Because it
was the cheapest period to rent venues, and could as a result drive the
most profit for OSGeo, increasing every LOCs chance of being selected.
That’s possibly the right way to do things … but it also means
overlapping with many peoples vacation periods, meaning many attendees
that would typically come, won’t. Was that a good thing? The competitive
process meant right or wrong, we were more or less “stuck” with an
August date.
What if instead we did something along the following (this is just to
get the brain juices flowing, not definitive):
1. Find a PCO we can work with year-after-year … this would make life
simpler for the committee, and cheaper for OSGeo as there’s no
year-after-year re-learning. It also means we can much more effectively
learn from our mistakes and have consistent relationships to work with
to put on a better show every year.
2. We come up with a predictable date/schedule so that attendees and
critically sponsors can plan around it year-after-year.
3. Committee looks into optional cities/countries to host through a lens
of a combination of availability, cost, transport access, and access to
locals who could help form a LOC. If this sounds like a lot of work …
well that’s why you have a PCO you work with year after year, who can do
the leg work on this for you efficiently and far better than any of us
can. This also gives you *negotiating* position with the various
venues/hotels/cities. With a conference the size of FOSS4g, most cities
have one venue that can support it … not much bargaining room when
you’re the LOC. But when you’re OSGeo that go to any city .. you can
negotiate.
4. All of this combined allows us to consult the board on options we’re
finding, fine tune based on the board’s needs — and ultimately work in
collaboration with the board to come up with a selected city, that has a
high chance of success given we’re putting our collective knowledge and
the PCOs together without having to pick “one proposal vs. another”.
I’m not sure if this is all making sense — sometimes email isn’t the
best communicator, but I guess my point is, I think we can do a lot
better than the current process, and arguably with far less cumulative
volunteer time when you combine the efforts of the committee and X
bidding LOCs.
Worth a discussion at least I’d suggest?
Thanks,
Dave
Dave McIlhagga
<a href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com" target="_blank" class="">dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com</a> <a href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com" target="_blank" class=""><mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com></a>
/Maps at your fingertips/
/
/
<a href="http://www.mapsherpa.com/" target="_blank" class="">www.mapsherpa.com</a> <a href="http://www.mapsherpa.com/" target="_blank" class=""><http://www.mapsherpa.com></a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<pre class="">On May 27, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Steven Feldman <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>
<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" target="_blank" class=""><mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com></a>> wrote:
Dave
Surely the board should delegate important tasks to its committees not
take on more work?
It sounds like you think something has gone wrong with the selection
process, can you explain?
Steven
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<pre class="">On 26 May 2016, at 19:28, Dave McIlhagga <<a href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com" target="_blank" class="">dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com</a>
<a href="mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com" target="_blank" class=""><mailto:dmcilhagga@mapsherpa.com></a>> wrote:
Steven,
I couldn’t agree more — this committee has probably the single
biggest impact of any OSGeo activities on the Foundation,
particularly from a financial perspective.
If we’re going to look at this — I think we should look at the whole
picture of how we do things here. It has long been a concern of mine
that the most important decision that OSGeo makes every year is
effectively delegated away by the board who is the elected group in
fact charged with representing the interests of the membership.
The number 1 change I would recommend is that this committee provide
all of the logistical services to review conference options, help
local organizing committees, and all of the other leg work a
committee exists to handle. But the over-riding guidance of what the
international FOSS4G annual conference should be all about, how OSGeo
decides where/how conference is hosted and run each year, should
really be in the domain of the Board.
This group can help that process out extensively given the breadth of
experience of the members. If it makes sense to continue the RFP
process as we have in the past (which I’m not convinced of) - then
this committee can manage that whole process, but I don’t believe we
should be casting the votes. It’s too important a decision for the
Foundation. Providing experience, perspective, and commentary on
proposals to the board is reasonable — but I feel it’s time that the
board take back this decision making authority.
Technically, the board does approve the decision of the committee —
but this has never been overturned, and in my opinion, the year we
failed in China was a direct outcome of this process - I don’t think
we’ve really learned our lesson from that yet.
Dave
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<pre class="">On May 26, 2016, at 12:40 PM, Steven Feldman <<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">shfeldman@gmail.com</a>
<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" target="_blank" class=""><mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com></a>> wrote:
Andrea
Definitely not my intention to indicate support no process.
Conference Committee is imho second most important committee of
OSGeo, my view is it should have process for selection, clear bounds
of authority and expectations on members.
Would be good to hear views from a broad cross section of current
and past members
Steven
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<pre class="">On 25 May 2016, at 22:01, Andrea Ross <<a href="mailto:andrea.ross@eclipse.org" target="_blank" class="">andrea.ross@eclipse.org</a>
<a href="mailto:andrea.ross@eclipse.org" target="_blank" class=""><mailto:andrea.ross@eclipse.org></a>> wrote:
Steven, All
Are you stating no process or criteria because you believe that's
best, or to draw attention to it being a very bad idea? I can't
tell through email. :-)
Andrea
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<pre class="">On 25/05/16 13:08, Steven Feldman wrote:
I thought that had been agreed by nearly everyone who commented
although there may have been one or two objections including mine.
It seems that if you want to join conference committee there is no
process or criteria, you say you want to join and then you can.
Quite what happens when you go silent I don't know? Membership
allows vote for location of FOSS4G which raises question about
potential "packing" of vote but so far we've not had a problem so
maybe not an issue.
If Maxi wants to be a member, I guess he is one. @Maxi, feel free
to add yourself to the current members list
Steven
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<pre class="">On 24 May 2016, at 15:19, Venkatesh Raghavan
<<a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">venka.osgeo@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank" class=""><mailto:venka.osgeo@gmail.com></a>> wrote:
On 2016/05/24 20:13, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Conference Committee,
I'd like to propose that we invite Andrea Ross to join the OSGeo
Conference Committee.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="">Firstly, we need to decide on the request from Maxi to join
the conference committee which was seconded by me.
Venka
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<pre class="">+1 from me, Cameron Shorter.
My reasoning is that Andrea has a lot of experience running
conferences,
especially through his involvement with LocationTech, and there are
synergies that could be gained by aligning OSGeo and LocationTech
effectively.
I note that there have been concerns aired previously about
LocationTech
competing to take over OSGeo's flagship FOSS4G event. I'm of the
opinion
that we should be mindful of this, but we should discuss the options
openly and I believe we can find a solution favourable for all. An
effective way to support this conversation is to invite Andrea
to be one
vote among our conference committee.
Warm regards, Cameron
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<pre class="">On 24/05/2016 6:31 am, Andrea Ross wrote:
Dear Steven, & Everyone
I've not been invited to the conference committee, but I will be in
Bonn, and I'm always glad to chat/meet.
Kind regards,
Andrea
On May 22, 2016 3:04:03 AM EDT, Steven Feldman
<<a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">shfeldman@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com" target="_blank" class=""><mailto:shfeldman@gmail.com></a>>
wrote:
Who is going to be in Bonn for FOSS4G?
It's an opportunity for the Conference Committee and interested
people to meet face to face, we could discuss some of the topics on
the 'outstanding
list'<a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities" target="_blank" class="">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities</a>
<a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities" target="_blank" class=""><http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_2016_Priorities></a>
and we could start preparing the call for 2018
Anyone interested?
Steven
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference_dev mailing list
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class=""><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="">_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class=""><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="">_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class=""><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="">_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class=""><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="">_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a> <a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class=""><mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org></a>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class=""></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="">
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
<a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class="">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class=""></pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<pre cols="72" class="">--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W <a href="http://www.lisasoft.com/" target="_blank" class="">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F +61 2 9009 5099</pre>
</div>
<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">
Conference_dev mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org" class="">Conference_dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev</a><br class=""></blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Board mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org" class="">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br class="">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>