[Foss4g2013] [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham Update

[Peter Batty]

Hi Jeroen,

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any discussion, but I do think far too
much is being read into Barry's comment on high value workshops. I think it
was an offhand comment, and as Barry said he wasn't involved in workshop
selection.

Cheers,
    Peter.


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Jeroen Ticheler <
jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net> wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> Open processes also have open discussions and although I think we all
> agree we should go easy on LoC's I have a problem with you asking us to not
> discuss selection criteria as a follow up on emails coming from LoC
> members. I've taken this off the Discuss list to the foss4g2013 list
> though, because I think it is an important discussion but not necessarily
> on the wider Discuss list.
>
> That said, I also think we have the right and reasons to be informed on
> reasons for turning down proposals, or in absence of that to ask questions
> or start discussions about selection criteria.
>
> I can only speak for my own business, but I'm convinced others have
> similar thoughts. Organizing workshops and presentations is good for us, as
> it is good for those that participate. At least that is what we strive for.
> We invest a lot in giving them, both in terms of energy as well as in
> actual money. We support OSGeo, FOSS4G, open source projects, students et
> cetera. As commercial entities we're all in the same boat here. I just
> notice an imbalance in project and company representation. I won't have to
> explain that Barry's comment on high value workshops for free then causes a
> fire to start ;-)
>
> My 2 cents, cheers,
> Jeroen
>
> On 10 mei 2013, at 17:31, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As a previous FOSS4G chair I would just appeal to everyone to go easy on
> the organizing team. I was not involved in the selection process this time
> but I do know there was a high number of workshops that were submitted, so
> unfortunately half the submitters are going to be disappointed and think
> that the committee made the wrong the choice.
>
> Barry also stated that he wasn't involved in workshop selection, so you
> really shouldn't all be reading lots into his side comment that the
> workshops present good value - my interpretation is that was just a general
> comment that was Barry's opinion and nothing to do with selection criteria.
>
> Also the reality is that there are so many submissions that you can't give
> specific reasons to everyone who was rejected why they didn't make it -
> this would hugely increase the already large amount of time that all these
> volunteers are putting into creating a FOSS4G event, and make a difficult
> process even more difficult.
>
> Just a few thoughts as a previous organizer :)
>
> Cheers,
>     Peter.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Jeroen Ticheler <
> jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net> wrote:
>
>> I concur with Markus.
>> I was also surprised to see none of our GeoNetwork related workshops
>> represented although they were always well received at previous
>> conferences. It would have been nice if we'd had feedback on the reasoning
>> behind that. Considering about half the national INSPIRE geospatial
>> catalogs in Europe run on the product I consider it a relevant OSGeo
>> product. Reading the thread, I note we should also put up a page with high
>> GeoNetwork workshop fees instead of always providing them for free at
>> FOSS4G conferences. I may actually start to consider that ;-)
>> Jeroen
>>
>> On 10 mei 2013, at 10:12, Markus Neteler <neteler at osgeo.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On 5/10/13, Barry Rowlingson <b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:27 AM, andrea antonello
>> >> <andrea.antonello at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Also I would have another wish. Is there a way to understand how the
>> >>> workshops were chosen.
>> >>> I see important projects missing, whereas several have kind of
>> >>> "double" or even "triple" workshops.
>> >
>> > Yes, surprising also for me.
>> >
>> >>> Given the few available slots, I would have expected more
>> >>> differentiation.
>> >>>
>> >>> Would be really keen to understand the process, if there is a simple
>> >>> way to do so.
>> >>
>> >> The workshop selection process was handed to our workshop subcommittee
>> >> - I've asked them to respond to these issues here on the mailing list
>> >> and personally to you two if that's necessary.
>> >>
>> >> The balance looks quite good to me, where there is duplication it
>> >> seems to be different aspects of the same project - Postgis Intro and
>> >> Postgis 3d have different audiences, for example. Its possible that
>> >> other projects weren't represented in the proposals which would
>> >> explain their absence.
>> >
>> > While I submitted an advanced GRASS GIS 7 workshop, I didn't even
>> > receive a 'your proposal was not considered' notification.
>> > A bit sad for a cofounder of OSGeo and participant of the first ever
>> > FOSS4G Conf 2004 in Bangkok.
>> >
>> >> There are a few workshops from OpenGeo, but if
>> >> you go to their website and see how much they charge for commercial
>> >> training, you might see this as us giving people the opportunity to
>> >> get some great training cheaply from some great trainers.
>> >
>> > ... well, not a convincing argument.
>> >
>> >> Anyway, our Workshop Team will address these issues later.
>> >
>> > Better sooner :)
>> >
>> > Markus
>> > (FOSS4G trainer since 1996)
>> >
>> >> Barry
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Discuss mailing list
>> >> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Discuss mailing list
>> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g2013/attachments/20130510/ad524786/attachment-0001.html>