[OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] OSGeo is the host of FOSS4G not a guest

Mon Jul 3 06:55:51 PDT 2017

As a OSGeo charter member and as someone who had a very small supporting
role in organizing a past FOSS4G-NA, I have seen a glimpse of the enormous
amount of effort it takes to successfully organize a conference.  In
addition to all the normal conference logistics, FOSS4G has the additional
challenge of balancing the sometimes conflicting ideas from a large
community spread across the globe.

I want to thank the LOC for all their hard, often unseen work.

Also, I don't see a problem with OSGeo being the "host" of FOSS4G as well
as being a sponsor of FOSS4G.  IMHO, "presented by OSGeo", as was agreed
to, makes it clear that FOSS4G is a OSGeo event.

On Jul 3, 2017 05:49, "Guido Stein" <guido at guidostein.com> wrote:

Good morning folks,

First, I have no problem making adjustments to the website. It's not a big
deal and can be done rather quickly.

That said, I am a bit frustrated and disheartened by this conversation. The
tone to me feels aggressive and discounts the reality of the work that the
LOC has put into this. While Maxi just noticed this, the website and
discussion about this choice has been had in the conference committee and
codified in the RFP. To me, the urgency that is being put on this request
is upsetting.

I believe Maxi and anyone else should voice their opinions in public, but
with 42 days left until the conference and with both a conference and
marketing committee present and functional, it is a little painful to hear
that "the community" as Maxi puts it (which in this thread represents 5
people ) think that we, the FOSS4G LOC, are not giving OSGeo its proper
?exposure? or ?title?.

I have been working on this project for 2 years and we, the LOC, have been
following all the guidance set out by the RFP
<https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2017/osgeo-conference-2017-request-for-proposal.pdf>
and
the conference committee. The RFP has this to say about what is
required/requested:

    The conference name will be 'FOSS4G 2017 presented by OSGeo'.

This guidance has been a part of the website since it began and has been a
part of the current design since the site took on it's current design in
September. So the site has been up for about 12 months and the current
design, which includes OSGeo as a Gold Sponsor has been up for 9 months.

The reason that OSGeo is listed under Gold Sponsor comes from a
conversation on the conference dev list. In order to insure that OSGeo has
clear privileges (booth, tickets, etc...) it was decided that OSGeo should
be treated as a Gold Sponsor, which includes having their logo presented as
such. To me, this does not suggest that their gold sponsor status is the
only role they play.

We, the LOC, have been incredibly honored to work on this project and hope
that we represent the OSGeo community to the best of our ability. To be
clear, no matter how the website is interpreted, OSGeo is at the center of
all the work that the LOC has been doing. We, the LOC, have always made it
clear that the FOSS4G is here to promote and support the OSGeo community of
projects and local chapters. We, the LOC, have helped to bring new sponsors
to the table and building new relationships to the OSGeo foundation. We
have also helped to create opportunities to promote OSGeo at other events
such as OSCON and the AAG.

I appreciate Maxi's concern on the positioning of OSGeo's brand and would
like to work with him, the marketing committee, and the conference
committee on making sure that the OSGeo brand is well placed. I would hope
that Maxi and the rest of the community would realize that with 42 days
until the conference the LOC is hard at work with daily and sometimes
hourly tasks focused on the event planning and logistics. I hope that
between the marketing and conference committees that Maxi's concerns can be
addressed and that the board does not have to weigh in on how the
conference is run directly.

Thank you all for your consideration and I look forward to seeing you in
Boston,

Guido Stein
Co-Chair
FOSS4G Boston 2017 presented by OSGeo

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 5:02 AM Till Adams <till.adams at fossgis.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I also agree with Maxi.
>
> I think the point we have to care about is that OSGeo is visible
> prominently on the F4G-conference-website and also during the
> conference. We put a strong focus on OSGeo-presence in 2016.
>
> Till
>
>
>
> Am 03.07.2017 um 09:17 schrieb andrea antonello:
> > Hi all,
> > I completely agree with Massimiliano. There is a huge difference
> > between host and sponsor.
> >
> > That said, I understand Brad's points and also would never want for
> > this to end in additional costs.
> >
> > But this should be considered as something to keep well in mind.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andrea
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> As a (nominal) Charter Member, I personally couldn't care about this
> issue. As long as everyone involved is for the same higher purpose, who is
> sponsoring who or supporting what is just details. Move on and focus on the
> bigger tasks.
> >>
> >>> On Jul 2, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Brad Hards <bradh at frogmouth.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Professor Cannata,
> >>>
> >>>> Your answer clarifies that OSGeo has not paid for being listed as
> sponsor.
> >>>>
> >>>> This doesn't change my idea that OSGeo shouldn't be listed as a
> sponsor an
> >>>> thus
> >>>>
> >>>> I renew my request to the board for removing OSGeo from that list and
> from
> >>>> any material listing OSGeo together (at the same level and/or same
> list of
> >>>> sponsors).
> >>>>
> >>>> That's because the marketing message it brings is clearly undesired
> and not
> >>>> respectful of the true.
> >>> I'm not a charter member or associated with the FOSS4G organisers, but
> having
> >>> attended a FOSS4G event and having been part of a volunteer conference
> >>> organisation, I respectfully ask that you reconsider. This is a very
> late
> >>> change to a lot of conference materials, and at a particularly bad
> time for
> >>> the organisers.
> >>>
> >>> In software terms, I'm not suggesting that your proposal isn't a valid
> change,
> >>> just that it is too late in the release cycle.
> >>>
> >>> If nothing else, consider the environmental impact of all that stuff
> being
> >>> junked.
> >>>
> >>> Brad
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Discuss mailing list
> >>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Discuss mailing list
> >> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20170703/c7ac67f1/attachment-0002.html>