Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
49 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
Dear Conference Committee,

Regarding the RFP for FOSS4G-2019, there was some discussion
on the Board list [1] after going through the last years RFP.
I summarize the suggestions that came out of the discussion
below;

a) OSGeo AGM could be conducted as an independent/exclusive session
and not while sessions are running in parallel. The 2019-LoC could consider
scheduling the session in the morning or evening time. There was also
suggest to host the AGM at lunch time or combining with ice-breaker.
The idea is to allow as many of OSGeo officers and charter members
to take part in the AGM.

b) Page 5 states "Labs should have computers ready, “bring your own”
causes time loss, because software has to be installed.".

The workshops at Boston were all BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) style [2] and
and it seems to have worked pretty well.
So, the statement regarding computer ready labs need to be changed

c) Page 6, "OSGeo Community events and activity" as
  "OSGeo Community events and activity at FOSS4G” or
  "OSGeo Community events at FOSS4G” could suffice.

d) "Hosted (or Presented/Produced) by OSGeo" need to be mentioned in the
conference website.
This can be added at an appropriate section of the 2019 RFP.
OSGeo need not be listed as Sponsor (although it receives all the
benefits of sponsorship at
the highest level).

e) "Rest of the World" mentioned at several places in the 2018 RFP.
There were some good
suggestions about the terminology on the conference ML [3] and an
agreement to use "Other
Regions" instead of "Rest of the World"

f) Page 11 mentions "We hope to keep cost per participant under $650 USD
for the conference
plus workshops."
I (Venka) am not aware of how the affordability discussion went on at
f2f in Boston. However a
more specific statement could be better for the 2019 RFP. e.g.
"We strongly recommend to keep the cost per participants under $XXX USD
(early bird) and
$YYY USD for the conference and workshops."

g) Page 12, mentions, "The conference committee will then propose the
location to the OSGeo Board, who must formally approve of the decision.".

This could be re-phrased as   "The conference committee will then convey
its decision to the OSGeo Board for its approval.".

h) If time permits, the RFP could be made available for a few days for
public comment before
final release.

Best

Venka

[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2017-August/010510.html
[2] http://2017.foss4g.org/workshops/.
[3]
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2017-February/004308.html

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
Sorry, used the wrong mail address to send this
mail out. Forwarding again.

Venka

On 8/22/2017 8:26 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:

> Dear Conference Committee,
>
> Regarding the RFP for FOSS4G-2019, there was some discussion
> on the Board list [1] after going through the last years RFP.
> I summarize the suggestions that came out of the discussion
> below;
>
> a) OSGeo AGM could be conducted as an independent/exclusive session
> and not while sessions are running in parallel. The 2019-LoC could consider
> scheduling the session in the morning or evening time. There was also
> suggest to host the AGM at lunch time or combining with ice-breaker.
> The idea is to allow as many of OSGeo officers and charter members
> to take part in the AGM.
>
> b) Page 5 states "Labs should have computers ready, “bring your own”
> causes time loss, because software has to be installed.".
>
> The workshops at Boston were all BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) style [2] and
> and it seems to have worked pretty well.
> So, the statement regarding computer ready labs need to be changed
>
> c) Page 6, "OSGeo Community events and activity" as
>  "OSGeo Community events and activity at FOSS4G” or
>  "OSGeo Community events at FOSS4G” could suffice.
>
> d) "Hosted (or Presented/Produced) by OSGeo" need to be mentioned in the
> conference website.
> This can be added at an appropriate section of the 2019 RFP.
> OSGeo need not be listed as Sponsor (although it receives all the
> benefits of sponsorship at
> the highest level).
>
> e) "Rest of the World" mentioned at several places in the 2018 RFP.
> There were some good
> suggestions about the terminology on the conference ML [3] and an
> agreement to use "Other
> Regions" instead of "Rest of the World"
>
> f) Page 11 mentions "We hope to keep cost per participant under $650 USD
> for the conference
> plus workshops."
> I (Venka) am not aware of how the affordability discussion went on at
> f2f in Boston. However a
> more specific statement could be better for the 2019 RFP. e.g.
> "We strongly recommend to keep the cost per participants under $XXX USD
> (early bird) and
> $YYY USD for the conference and workshops."
>
> g) Page 12, mentions, "The conference committee will then propose the
> location to the OSGeo Board, who must formally approve of the decision.".
>
> This could be re-phrased as   "The conference committee will then convey
> its decision to the OSGeo Board for its approval.".
>
> h) If time permits, the RFP could be made available for a few days for
> public comment before
> final release.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2017-August/010510.html
> [2] http://2017.foss4g.org/workshops/.
> [3]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2017-February/004308.html
>

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Till Adams-3
In reply to this post by Venkatesh Raghavan-2
Dear Conference Committee,

(as not finally voted, but last nominated chair of this committee I
start this process before nobody else does ;-))

I just chatted with Steven, and we'd like to get the 2019 RfP in motion
ASAP. Writing this, I aready started and created a WIKI page (see link
below). I think for the RFP the most important point is the timetable.
In comparison to past calls, I tightened the timetable a little (e.g. 14
days for questions instead of a 21 day period), so that we have the
chance to get a decision by mid of december.

Feel free to comment and/or edit:
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2019_Bid_Process

We also have to include the suggestions of the board Venka recently
sent. Regarding them, I see no problems with adapting Venkas points a -
e and g, point h depends on time but might be critical, because we are
already little late.

I'd like to suggest a more comprising section instead of Venkas point f:

Venka writes:

f) Page 11 mentions "We hope to keep cost per participant under $650 USD
for the conference
> plus workshops."
> I (Venka) am not aware of how the affordability discussion went on at
> f2f in Boston. However a
> more specific statement could be better for the 2019 RFP. e.g.
> "We strongly recommend to keep the cost per participants under $XXX
> USD (early bird) and
> $YYY USD for the conference and workshops."

I'd like to replace the sentence in question by:

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please be aware, that a global FOSS4G is OSGeo's major event and that it
should be open to as many participants as possible. One major factor are
the overall costs of the conference-visit for potential attendees.
We suggest to keep conference fees per participant under $650 excluding
costs for workshops and the social event. The experience of the past
years has shown, that the social event is one major part of a FOSS4G, so
we suggest to include the social event in the overall conference package.

Please line out:
- whether you are able to hit our expectations of a max conference fee
of $650 or if not, why and whether it will include or exclude the main
social event
- costs for accommodations around your place from basic to premium (I
think this is included anyhow)
- give us a hint on the general living costs such as averaged costs for
a meal/drink/public transport and so forth
- describe briefly how you will enable especially financial weak persons
to attend your conference (e.g. student helper programme,
pre-reservation of especially cheap accommodations, collect money on top
of travel grant programme funding from OSGeo, [your ideas], etc.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think we must see the overall costs - low fees and high accommodation
costs or even high costs for drinks may also exclude many people from
FOSS4G or from one of the most important parts of a FOSS4G: Socializing
(having low fees of e.g. $400 does not help anybody jumping into our
community, when a beer costs $8 and he/she is not able to join other
participants in the evenings....)

Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference dates:
I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or maybe
also cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also
know, that there have been some problems for people attending the
conferences in 2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August,
so maybe we can also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people
to have their conference in August?


Please also comment on this as well!

Regards, Till













_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

delawen
> Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference dates:
> I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
> should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or maybe also
> cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also know,
> that there have been some problems for people attending the conferences in
> 2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe we can
> also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
> conference in August?

I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
northern summer may look appealing to people that go to conferences as
if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
from work, this is a major issue.
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

stevenfeldman
2016 was in august and attracted 940/950 people
2017 was in august and attracted 1140 people
That's record attendance 2 years running (in August)

Doesn't look like August is a big issue for us in the northern hemisphere.
I also heard from some of the organisers that they were able to obtain lower rates for venues in August

I think we should leave it to LOCs to propose the dates that work for them based on regional holiday patterns, pricing, weather and any other constraints they may have

Now I'm going back to my end of august holiday ;)

Steven


On 31 Aug 2017, at 13:15, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference dates:
>> I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
>> should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or maybe also
>> cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also know,
>> that there have been some problems for people attending the conferences in
>> 2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe we can
>> also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
>> conference in August?
>
> I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
> northern summer may look appealing to people that go to conferences as
> if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
> family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
> from work, this is a major issue.
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS)-2
Several members of our community have pointed out that it is an issue
for them to attend, e.g. Jeroen Ticheler pointed this out before. For me
this is the same, I normally can't attend a conference in the school
vacation. Boston wasn't possible. Bonn was barely possible because
schools had just started that week (but some years school vacation will
be until early September even due to regional rotation).

Looking at attendance figures and saying it's no big issue doesn't
really give the right attention to the problem IMHO.

Also even if the venue might be cheaper, I'm sure flights and
accommodation will be expensive in the European holiday season.

Best regards,

Bart


On 31-08-17 15:03, Steven Feldman wrote:

> 2016 was in august and attracted 940/950 people
> 2017 was in august and attracted 1140 people
> That's record attendance 2 years running (in August)
>
> Doesn't look like August is a big issue for us in the northern hemisphere.
> I also heard from some of the organisers that they were able to obtain lower rates for venues in August
>
> I think we should leave it to LOCs to propose the dates that work for them based on regional holiday patterns, pricing, weather and any other constraints they may have
>
> Now I'm going back to my end of august holiday ;)
>
> Steven
>
>
> On 31 Aug 2017, at 13:15, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference dates:
>>> I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
>>> should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or maybe also
>>> cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also know,
>>> that there have been some problems for people attending the conferences in
>>> 2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe we can
>>> also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
>>> conference in August?
>> I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
>> northern summer may look appealing to people that go to conferences as
>> if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
>> family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
>> from work, this is a major issue.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

dirkf
IMHO was Bonn (2016) during the last week of August. Boston (2017) was
August 15, which is a holiday and in the middle of the holiday season.

my2c.

btw, how many visitors where in Boston?

On 31-08-17 15:17, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:

> Several members of our community have pointed out that it is an issue
> for them to attend, e.g. Jeroen Ticheler pointed this out before. For me
> this is the same, I normally can't attend a conference in the school
> vacation. Boston wasn't possible. Bonn was barely possible because
> schools had just started that week (but some years school vacation will
> be until early September even due to regional rotation).
>
> Looking at attendance figures and saying it's no big issue doesn't
> really give the right attention to the problem IMHO.
>
> Also even if the venue might be cheaper, I'm sure flights and
> accommodation will be expensive in the European holiday season.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bart
>
>
> On 31-08-17 15:03, Steven Feldman wrote:
>> 2016 was in august and attracted 940/950 people
>> 2017 was in august and attracted 1140 people
>> That's record attendance 2 years running (in August)
>>
>> Doesn't look like August is a big issue for us in the northern
>> hemisphere.
>> I also heard from some of the organisers that they were able to obtain
>> lower rates for venues in August
>>
>> I think we should leave it to LOCs to propose the dates that work for
>> them based on regional holiday patterns, pricing, weather and any
>> other constraints they may have
>>
>> Now I'm going back to my end of august holiday ;)
>>
>> Steven
>>
>>
>> On 31 Aug 2017, at 13:15, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference
>>>> dates:
>>>> I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
>>>> should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or
>>>> maybe also
>>>> cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also
>>>> know,
>>>> that there have been some problems for people attending the
>>>> conferences in
>>>> 2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe
>>>> we can
>>>> also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
>>>> conference in August?
>>> I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
>>> northern summer may look appealing to people that go to conferences as
>>> if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
>>> family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
>>> from work, this is a major issue.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

--
Yours sincerely,


ir. Dirk Frigne
CEO @geosparc

Geosparc n.v.
Brugsesteenweg 587
B-9030 Ghent
Tel: +32 9 236 60 18
GSM: +32 495 508 799

http://www.geomajas.org
http://www.geosparc.com

@DFrigne
be.linkedin.com/in/frigne

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Till Adams-3
Hi CC,

based on the discussion that already took pace in the past 2 hours, I
think we will not find an agreement, that satisfies everybody here. I'd
suggest to follow Steven (let the bidding teams suggest their prefered
date) and add a comment, that teams should line out, what an alternative
date would mean in sight of costs or other circumstances (in Bonn they
tourist office simply told me, that they could not block as many
accommodations as needed).

So, if a bidding team suggests a date, that lies in "normal" holiday
periods (I know, that holidays vary from year to year, in Germany they
do it for every state every year), we could please them to briefly line
out what an alternative date in, let's say, September would mean.

I'd more prefer, if anybody from CC (except Steven, he is on holidays
;-)) could make comments on my time schedule for the RFP... ;-)

Till





Am 31.08.2017 15:51, schrieb Dirk Frigne:

> IMHO was Bonn (2016) during the last week of August. Boston (2017) was
> August 15, which is a holiday and in the middle of the holiday season.
>
> my2c.
>
> btw, how many visitors where in Boston?
>
> On 31-08-17 15:17, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>> Several members of our community have pointed out that it is an issue
>> for them to attend, e.g. Jeroen Ticheler pointed this out before. For me
>> this is the same, I normally can't attend a conference in the school
>> vacation. Boston wasn't possible. Bonn was barely possible because
>> schools had just started that week (but some years school vacation will
>> be until early September even due to regional rotation).
>>
>> Looking at attendance figures and saying it's no big issue doesn't
>> really give the right attention to the problem IMHO.
>>
>> Also even if the venue might be cheaper, I'm sure flights and
>> accommodation will be expensive in the European holiday season.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Bart
>>
>>
>> On 31-08-17 15:03, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>> 2016 was in august and attracted 940/950 people
>>> 2017 was in august and attracted 1140 people
>>> That's record attendance 2 years running (in August)
>>>
>>> Doesn't look like August is a big issue for us in the northern
>>> hemisphere.
>>> I also heard from some of the organisers that they were able to obtain
>>> lower rates for venues in August
>>>
>>> I think we should leave it to LOCs to propose the dates that work for
>>> them based on regional holiday patterns, pricing, weather and any
>>> other constraints they may have
>>>
>>> Now I'm going back to my end of august holiday ;)
>>>
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 Aug 2017, at 13:15, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference
>>>>> dates:
>>>>> I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
>>>>> should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or
>>>>> maybe also
>>>>> cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also
>>>>> know,
>>>>> that there have been some problems for people attending the
>>>>> conferences in
>>>>> 2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe
>>>>> we can
>>>>> also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
>>>>> conference in August?
>>>> I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
>>>> northern summer may look appealing to people that go to conferences as
>>>> if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
>>>> family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
>>>> from work, this is a major issue.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Eli Adam
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Conference Committee,
>
> (as not finally voted, but last nominated chair of this committee I start
> this process before nobody else does ;-))
>
> I just chatted with Steven, and we'd like to get the 2019 RfP in motion
> ASAP. Writing this, I aready started and created a WIKI page (see link
> below). I think for the RFP the most important point is the timetable. In
> comparison to past calls, I tightened the timetable a little (e.g. 14 days
> for questions instead of a 21 day period), so that we have the chance to get
> a decision by mid of december.

Let reason not arbitrary dates drive the schedule.  That being said, I
think that your timeline is reasonable.  Consider your own personal
schedule and the AoE timezone and budget an extra day for you to do
work where needed.

>
> Feel free to comment and/or edit:
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2019_Bid_Process

I did some light editing.  Perhaps review my assumptions/corrections.
The major change I made pertained to announcing a result.  We may
announce the results of our voting but we don't actually select the
LOC and FOSS4G location, we pass it to the Board to approve it.  You
may want to coordinate dates with the Board so that they have a
meeting 1-3 days after our result so that they can approve it and then
it is official.

>
> We also have to include the suggestions of the board Venka recently sent.
> Regarding them, I see no problems with adapting Venkas points a - e and g,
> point h depends on time but might be critical, because we are already little
> late.

a) OSGeo AGM not in parallel with sessions is a good idea.  Lunch, or
late afternoon after sessions but before evening events sounds good.
I believe that technically the AGM is without cost and open to
everyone.

b) Prohibition on BYOD should be removed

c) Add "at FOSS4G" to "OSGeo Community Events" seems unnecessary since
it is in a FOSS4G RFP and everything is at FOSS4G.  It is an easy
change so might as well do it.

d) ""Hosted (or Presented/Produced) by OSGeo" need to be mentioned in the
conference website." is micromanaging and I'd prefer to not get into
specific words on the website but this could be added to the existing
Conference Naming section of the RFP:

Conference Naming
The conference name will be “FOSS4G <city name> <year> hosted by
OSGeo”. Other variants of the name may
be considered, for translation purposes.  Include this on the website.

e) Replace "Rest of the World" with "Other Regions" based on agreement
on mailing list.  This is a good idea and should be done.  It is on my
list to make proper motion so that this is official policy of the
Conference Committee, OSGeo, and FOSS4G.

f) see below

g) Seems good, should update the wiki with this

h) good idea if time permits.

>
> I'd like to suggest a more comprising section instead of Venkas point f:
>
> Venka writes:
>
> f) Page 11 mentions "We hope to keep cost per participant under $650 USD for
> the conference
>>
>> plus workshops."
>> I (Venka) am not aware of how the affordability discussion went on at f2f
>> in Boston. However a
>> more specific statement could be better for the 2019 RFP. e.g.
>> "We strongly recommend to keep the cost per participants under $XXX USD
>> (early bird) and
>> $YYY USD for the conference and workshops."
>
>
> I'd like to replace the sentence in question by:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Please be aware, that a global FOSS4G is OSGeo's major event and that it
> should be open to as many participants as possible. One major factor are the
> overall costs of the conference-visit for potential attendees.
> We suggest to keep conference fees per participant under $650 excluding
> costs for workshops and the social event. The experience of the past years
> has shown, that the social event is one major part of a FOSS4G, so we
> suggest to include the social event in the overall conference package.
>
> Please line out:
> - whether you are able to hit our expectations of a max conference fee of
> $650 or if not, why and whether it will include or exclude the main social
> event
> - costs for accommodations around your place from basic to premium (I think
> this is included anyhow)
> - give us a hint on the general living costs such as averaged costs for a
> meal/drink/public transport and so forth
> - describe briefly how you will enable especially financial weak persons to
> attend your conference (e.g. student helper programme, pre-reservation of
> especially cheap accommodations, collect money on top of travel grant
> programme funding from OSGeo, [your ideas], etc.)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> I think we must see the overall costs - low fees and high accommodation
> costs or even high costs for drinks may also exclude many people from FOSS4G
> or from one of the most important parts of a FOSS4G: Socializing (having low
> fees of e.g. $400 does not help anybody jumping into our community, when a
> beer costs $8 and he/she is not able to join other participants in the
> evenings....)

I'd like to not add a bunch of words or restrictions on the LOC.  LOCs
endeavor to make FOSS4G as cost effective as possible.  I think that
prices will remain about the same.  There is the possibility that
someone who thinks dramatically differently about prices figures out a
way to do it and submits a bid.  When we have such a bid, I'm sure
that it will receive votes.  Realistic low cost bids is how the price
will change.  Or a dramatic change in OSGeo finances such that OSGeo
sponsorship goes up substantially and FOSS4G can be run at a loss as
an outreach event.
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Finance_Operational_Notes#Historical_Overview

In my opinion, the current wording is already sufficient:

Cost for attendees
o We hope to keep cost per participant under $650 USD for the
conference plus workshops.
o We would welcome innovative approaches that can offer more
affordable options to
delegates. These might include differential pricing, alternative
venues, reduced catering costs,
changing dates or excluding the cost (or part of the cost) of social events.
o Note: please include all prices in USD in your proposal, and please
specify a currency date in
your proposal (e.g. USD 2015-07-01).


>
> Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference dates:
> I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
> should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or maybe also
> cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also know,
> that there have been some problems for people attending the conferences in
> 2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe we can
> also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
> conference in August?
>

We can comment that September is the preferred time frame but bids
will still bid what works.  September has higher venue prices.  You,
even in Europe, found that August was the best option.  For 2017 we
had three bids all in August.  I think that many Conference Committee
members will preferentially vote for September dates but those are not
what LOCs are finding is reasonable to bid.  If anything, this
September goal runs counter to the low cost goal above.

Before we start the RFP process, I'd request a member freeze on the
committee until after the final decision.  If we are making voting
member changes to the committee, these should be completed before we
start the RFP process.  See also,
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Membership

When we get to motions, please use the process:
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Decisions

Thanks for doing this Till.  I'm looking forward to helping a little bit.

Best regards, Eli

>
> Please also comment on this as well!
>
> Regards, Till
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Eli Adam
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear Conference Committee,
>>
>> (as not finally voted, but last nominated chair of this committee I start
>> this process before nobody else does ;-))
>>
>> I just chatted with Steven, and we'd like to get the 2019 RfP in motion
>> ASAP. Writing this, I aready started and created a WIKI page (see link
>> below). I think for the RFP the most important point is the timetable. In
>> comparison to past calls, I tightened the timetable a little (e.g. 14 days
>> for questions instead of a 21 day period), so that we have the chance to get
>> a decision by mid of december.
>
> Let reason not arbitrary dates drive the schedule.  That being said, I
> think that your timeline is reasonable.  Consider your own personal
> schedule and the AoE timezone and budget an extra day for you to do
> work where needed.
>
>>
>> Feel free to comment and/or edit:
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2019_Bid_Process

I updated, http://www.osgeo.org/conference/rfp, pointing to the wiki
page.  I also stamped "Draft" at the top of the wiki page.  Remove it
when you're ready.

Eli

>
> I did some light editing.  Perhaps review my assumptions/corrections.
> The major change I made pertained to announcing a result.  We may
> announce the results of our voting but we don't actually select the
> LOC and FOSS4G location, we pass it to the Board to approve it.  You
> may want to coordinate dates with the Board so that they have a
> meeting 1-3 days after our result so that they can approve it and then
> it is official.
>
>>
>> We also have to include the suggestions of the board Venka recently sent.
>> Regarding them, I see no problems with adapting Venkas points a - e and g,
>> point h depends on time but might be critical, because we are already little
>> late.
>
> a) OSGeo AGM not in parallel with sessions is a good idea.  Lunch, or
> late afternoon after sessions but before evening events sounds good.
> I believe that technically the AGM is without cost and open to
> everyone.
>
> b) Prohibition on BYOD should be removed
>
> c) Add "at FOSS4G" to "OSGeo Community Events" seems unnecessary since
> it is in a FOSS4G RFP and everything is at FOSS4G.  It is an easy
> change so might as well do it.
>
> d) ""Hosted (or Presented/Produced) by OSGeo" need to be mentioned in the
> conference website." is micromanaging and I'd prefer to not get into
> specific words on the website but this could be added to the existing
> Conference Naming section of the RFP:
>
> Conference Naming
> The conference name will be “FOSS4G <city name> <year> hosted by
> OSGeo”. Other variants of the name may
> be considered, for translation purposes.  Include this on the website.
>
> e) Replace "Rest of the World" with "Other Regions" based on agreement
> on mailing list.  This is a good idea and should be done.  It is on my
> list to make proper motion so that this is official policy of the
> Conference Committee, OSGeo, and FOSS4G.
>
> f) see below
>
> g) Seems good, should update the wiki with this
>
> h) good idea if time permits.
>
>>
>> I'd like to suggest a more comprising section instead of Venkas point f:
>>
>> Venka writes:
>>
>> f) Page 11 mentions "We hope to keep cost per participant under $650 USD for
>> the conference
>>>
>>> plus workshops."
>>> I (Venka) am not aware of how the affordability discussion went on at f2f
>>> in Boston. However a
>>> more specific statement could be better for the 2019 RFP. e.g.
>>> "We strongly recommend to keep the cost per participants under $XXX USD
>>> (early bird) and
>>> $YYY USD for the conference and workshops."
>>
>>
>> I'd like to replace the sentence in question by:
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Please be aware, that a global FOSS4G is OSGeo's major event and that it
>> should be open to as many participants as possible. One major factor are the
>> overall costs of the conference-visit for potential attendees.
>> We suggest to keep conference fees per participant under $650 excluding
>> costs for workshops and the social event. The experience of the past years
>> has shown, that the social event is one major part of a FOSS4G, so we
>> suggest to include the social event in the overall conference package.
>>
>> Please line out:
>> - whether you are able to hit our expectations of a max conference fee of
>> $650 or if not, why and whether it will include or exclude the main social
>> event
>> - costs for accommodations around your place from basic to premium (I think
>> this is included anyhow)
>> - give us a hint on the general living costs such as averaged costs for a
>> meal/drink/public transport and so forth
>> - describe briefly how you will enable especially financial weak persons to
>> attend your conference (e.g. student helper programme, pre-reservation of
>> especially cheap accommodations, collect money on top of travel grant
>> programme funding from OSGeo, [your ideas], etc.)
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> I think we must see the overall costs - low fees and high accommodation
>> costs or even high costs for drinks may also exclude many people from FOSS4G
>> or from one of the most important parts of a FOSS4G: Socializing (having low
>> fees of e.g. $400 does not help anybody jumping into our community, when a
>> beer costs $8 and he/she is not able to join other participants in the
>> evenings....)
>
> I'd like to not add a bunch of words or restrictions on the LOC.  LOCs
> endeavor to make FOSS4G as cost effective as possible.  I think that
> prices will remain about the same.  There is the possibility that
> someone who thinks dramatically differently about prices figures out a
> way to do it and submits a bid.  When we have such a bid, I'm sure
> that it will receive votes.  Realistic low cost bids is how the price
> will change.  Or a dramatic change in OSGeo finances such that OSGeo
> sponsorship goes up substantially and FOSS4G can be run at a loss as
> an outreach event.
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Finance_Operational_Notes#Historical_Overview
>
> In my opinion, the current wording is already sufficient:
>
> Cost for attendees
> o We hope to keep cost per participant under $650 USD for the
> conference plus workshops.
> o We would welcome innovative approaches that can offer more
> affordable options to
> delegates. These might include differential pricing, alternative
> venues, reduced catering costs,
> changing dates or excluding the cost (or part of the cost) of social events.
> o Note: please include all prices in USD in your proposal, and please
> specify a currency date in
> your proposal (e.g. USD 2015-07-01).
>
>
>>
>> Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference dates:
>> I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
>> should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or maybe also
>> cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also know,
>> that there have been some problems for people attending the conferences in
>> 2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe we can
>> also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
>> conference in August?
>>
>
> We can comment that September is the preferred time frame but bids
> will still bid what works.  September has higher venue prices.  You,
> even in Europe, found that August was the best option.  For 2017 we
> had three bids all in August.  I think that many Conference Committee
> members will preferentially vote for September dates but those are not
> what LOCs are finding is reasonable to bid.  If anything, this
> September goal runs counter to the low cost goal above.
>
> Before we start the RFP process, I'd request a member freeze on the
> committee until after the final decision.  If we are making voting
> member changes to the committee, these should be completed before we
> start the RFP process.  See also,
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Membership
>
> When we get to motions, please use the process:
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Decisions
>
> Thanks for doing this Till.  I'm looking forward to helping a little bit.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>>
>> Please also comment on this as well!
>>
>> Regards, Till
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Till Adams-3
Dear Eli,

many thanks for your input, always appreciated.

I've seen that the RFP document here

https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2019/osgeo-conference-2017-request-for-proposal.pdf

was originally created by you. Do you mind so send me the real document
or share it via google, so that I could insert the changes and prepare
the document ready for the 2019 call?

Thanks, Till
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Eli Adam
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Dear Eli,
>
> many thanks for your input, always appreciated.
>
> I've seen that the RFP document here
>
> https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2019/osgeo-conference-2017-request-for-proposal.pdf
>

The original is I believe in SVN right next to the pdf,
https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2017/

But I really think that you should build off the most recent 2018 RFP
by Steven, and also as with all such documents, in SVN,
https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2018/

> was originally created by you. Do you mind so send me the real document or
> share it via google, so that I could insert the changes and prepare the
> document ready for the 2019 call?

Check into SVN once you're ready.  If you need help with that let me
or someone else know and we'll do it.

Best regards, Eli

>
> Thanks, Till
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

stevenfeldman
The 2018 RfP had a lot of changes made, including extracting all the dates, contacts etc into a section at the front which makes it much easier to update

Cheers

Steven
07958 924 101

> On 1 Sep 2017, at 17:38, Eli Adam <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Till Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear Eli,
>>
>> many thanks for your input, always appreciated.
>>
>> I've seen that the RFP document here
>>
>> https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2019/osgeo-conference-2017-request-for-proposal.pdf
>>
>
> The original is I believe in SVN right next to the pdf,
> https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2017/
>
> But I really think that you should build off the most recent 2018 RFP
> by Steven, and also as with all such documents, in SVN,
> https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/rfp/2018/
>
>> was originally created by you. Do you mind so send me the real document or
>> share it via google, so that I could insert the changes and prepare the
>> document ready for the 2019 call?
>
> Check into SVN once you're ready.  If you need help with that let me
> or someone else know and we'll do it.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>>
>> Thanks, Till
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Till Adams-3
Till,

Thanks so much for taking the lead on this. In our do-ocracy your vote
counts for much.

Re selecting dates, I agree we have diverse opinions on dates and are
not likely to agree, but lets not have our committee members select a
conference venue based on date proposed, (which might be the case if the
opinions voiced here is the case). It is not fair to the cities putting
in proposals.

We should collectively work out our opinion as a committee, and provide
that information to proposers. Maybe do a poll of voting committee
members for date ranges, and present that information to proposing cities.


On 31/8/17 11:58 pm, Till Adams wrote:

> Hi CC,
>
> based on the discussion that already took pace in the past 2 hours, I
> think we will not find an agreement, that satisfies everybody here.
> I'd suggest to follow Steven (let the bidding teams suggest their
> prefered date) and add a comment, that teams should line out, what an
> alternative date would mean in sight of costs or other circumstances
> (in Bonn they tourist office simply told me, that they could not block
> as many accommodations as needed).
>
> So, if a bidding team suggests a date, that lies in "normal" holiday
> periods (I know, that holidays vary from year to year, in Germany they
> do it for every state every year), we could please them to briefly
> line out what an alternative date in, let's say, September would mean.
>
> I'd more prefer, if anybody from CC (except Steven, he is on holidays
> ;-)) could make comments on my time schedule for the RFP... ;-)
>
> Till
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 31.08.2017 15:51, schrieb Dirk Frigne:
>> IMHO was Bonn (2016) during the last week of August. Boston (2017) was
>> August 15, which is a holiday and in the middle of the holiday season.
>>
>> my2c.
>>
>> btw, how many visitors where in Boston?
>>
>> On 31-08-17 15:17, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>>> Several members of our community have pointed out that it is an issue
>>> for them to attend, e.g. Jeroen Ticheler pointed this out before.
>>> For me
>>> this is the same, I normally can't attend a conference in the school
>>> vacation. Boston wasn't possible. Bonn was barely possible because
>>> schools had just started that week (but some years school vacation will
>>> be until early September even due to regional rotation).
>>>
>>> Looking at attendance figures and saying it's no big issue doesn't
>>> really give the right attention to the problem IMHO.
>>>
>>> Also even if the venue might be cheaper, I'm sure flights and
>>> accommodation will be expensive in the European holiday season.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Bart
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31-08-17 15:03, Steven Feldman wrote:
>>>> 2016 was in august and attracted 940/950 people
>>>> 2017 was in august and attracted 1140 people
>>>> That's record attendance 2 years running (in August)
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't look like August is a big issue for us in the northern
>>>> hemisphere.
>>>> I also heard from some of the organisers that they were able to obtain
>>>> lower rates for venues in August
>>>>
>>>> I think we should leave it to LOCs to propose the dates that work for
>>>> them based on regional holiday patterns, pricing, weather and any
>>>> other constraints they may have
>>>>
>>>> Now I'm going back to my end of august holiday ;)
>>>>
>>>> Steven
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 31 Aug 2017, at 13:15, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference
>>>>>> dates:
>>>>>> I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct),
>>>>>> but we
>>>>>> should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or
>>>>>> maybe also
>>>>>> cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also
>>>>>> know,
>>>>>> that there have been some problems for people attending the
>>>>>> conferences in
>>>>>> 2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe
>>>>>> we can
>>>>>> also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> conference in August?
>>>>> I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
>>>>> northern summer may look appealing to people that go to
>>>>> conferences as
>>>>> if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
>>>>> family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
>>>>> from work, this is a major issue.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Conference_dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

--
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Michael Terner
Just one note on dates coming in the wake of Boston where we heard loud, and often about our mid-August time period. And, as has been pointed out, this timing did not deter our ability to attract a record number of delegates:
  1. No time period is good for everyone. Some people are on vacation in August. Other people have significant academic calendar challenges with September. There will always be some people disappointed/frustrated by a given date. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the conference to declare that August vacations are more/less important than other legitimate conflicts with other time periods.
  2. At least in the US, there are significant cost and availability variations between August and September/October. Boston would have been a more expensive conference, with more expensive lodging had it been held in September.
  3. Indeed, while August does mean that some people who are on vacation cannot come, it is likely that it also opened up an ability for others to come who might not have been able to make a September date (hence the good attendance figures from the past 2 August conferences).
From my vantage, it is OK to have a conference that moves around an August - October time period. The specific conference date is chosen by the CC/Board and based on what was proposed. I do not believe it is in the best long term interest of the conference to have iron-clad limits on what might be proposed.

Reading from afar, it looks like very good work, with predictable challenges attempting to be addressed (i.e., cost containment; data selection; etc.). Best of luck in getting the RFP for 2019 on the street. 

MT

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till,

Thanks so much for taking the lead on this. In our do-ocracy your vote counts for much.

Re selecting dates, I agree we have diverse opinions on dates and are not likely to agree, but lets not have our committee members select a conference venue based on date proposed, (which might be the case if the opinions voiced here is the case). It is not fair to the cities putting in proposals.

We should collectively work out our opinion as a committee, and provide that information to proposers. Maybe do a poll of voting committee members for date ranges, and present that information to proposing cities.



On 31/8/17 11:58 pm, Till Adams wrote:
Hi CC,

based on the discussion that already took pace in the past 2 hours, I think we will not find an agreement, that satisfies everybody here. I'd suggest to follow Steven (let the bidding teams suggest their prefered date) and add a comment, that teams should line out, what an alternative date would mean in sight of costs or other circumstances (in Bonn they tourist office simply told me, that they could not block as many accommodations as needed).

So, if a bidding team suggests a date, that lies in "normal" holiday periods (I know, that holidays vary from year to year, in Germany they do it for every state every year), we could please them to briefly line out what an alternative date in, let's say, September would mean.

I'd more prefer, if anybody from CC (except Steven, he is on holidays ;-)) could make comments on my time schedule for the RFP... ;-)

Till





Am <a href="tel:31.08.2017%2015" value="+13108201715" target="_blank">31.08.2017 15:51, schrieb Dirk Frigne:
IMHO was Bonn (2016) during the last week of August. Boston (2017) was
August 15, which is a holiday and in the middle of the holiday season.

my2c.

btw, how many visitors where in Boston?

On 31-08-17 15:17, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
Several members of our community have pointed out that it is an issue
for them to attend, e.g. Jeroen Ticheler pointed this out before. For me
this is the same, I normally can't attend a conference in the school
vacation. Boston wasn't possible. Bonn was barely possible because
schools had just started that week (but some years school vacation will
be until early September even due to regional rotation).

Looking at attendance figures and saying it's no big issue doesn't
really give the right attention to the problem IMHO.

Also even if the venue might be cheaper, I'm sure flights and
accommodation will be expensive in the European holiday season.

Best regards,

Bart


On 31-08-17 15:03, Steven Feldman wrote:
2016 was in august and attracted 940/950 people
2017 was in august and attracted 1140 people
That's record attendance 2 years running (in August)

Doesn't look like August is a big issue for us in the northern
hemisphere.
I also heard from some of the organisers that they were able to obtain
lower rates for venues in August

I think we should leave it to LOCs to propose the dates that work for
them based on regional holiday patterns, pricing, weather and any
other constraints they may have

Now I'm going back to my end of august holiday ;)

Steven


On 31 Aug 2017, at 13:15, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference
dates:
I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or
maybe also
cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also
know,
that there have been some problems for people attending the
conferences in
2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe
we can
also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
conference in August?
I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
northern summer may look appealing to people that go to conferences as
if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
from work, this is a major issue.
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

--
Cameron Shorter
M <a href="tel:%2B61%20419%20142%20254" value="+61419142254" target="_blank">+61 419 142 254


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev



--
Michael Terner
Executive Vice President
617-447-2468 Direct | 617-447-2400 Main
Applied Geographics, Inc.
24 School Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108

www.AppGeo.com

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or otherwise authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy, distribute, disclose or take any action based on the information contained in this e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this message and material in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics, Inc. (AppGeo).
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

stevenfeldman
+1 to everything MT has said below re dates

I’d also add that moving to September may well mean a clash with the Jewish High Holy Days which often land in September or early October. No date choice works for everyone!

Let’s live the choice of date open to bidders and ask them to give some explanation of the reason for their choice and the outline  possible options to move to another date/venue at a different cost (if any)
______
Steven


On 3 Sep 2017, at 18:29, Michael Terner <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just one note on dates coming in the wake of Boston where we heard loud, and often about our mid-August time period. And, as has been pointed out, this timing did not deter our ability to attract a record number of delegates:
  1. No time period is good for everyone. Some people are on vacation in August. Other people have significant academic calendar challenges with September. There will always be some people disappointed/frustrated by a given date. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the conference to declare that August vacations are more/less important than other legitimate conflicts with other time periods.
  2. At least in the US, there are significant cost and availability variations between August and September/October. Boston would have been a more expensive conference, with more expensive lodging had it been held in September.
  3. Indeed, while August does mean that some people who are on vacation cannot come, it is likely that it also opened up an ability for others to come who might not have been able to make a September date (hence the good attendance figures from the past 2 August conferences).
From my vantage, it is OK to have a conference that moves around an August - October time period. The specific conference date is chosen by the CC/Board and based on what was proposed. I do not believe it is in the best long term interest of the conference to have iron-clad limits on what might be proposed.

Reading from afar, it looks like very good work, with predictable challenges attempting to be addressed (i.e., cost containment; data selection; etc.). Best of luck in getting the RFP for 2019 on the street. 

MT

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till,

Thanks so much for taking the lead on this. In our do-ocracy your vote counts for much.

Re selecting dates, I agree we have diverse opinions on dates and are not likely to agree, but lets not have our committee members select a conference venue based on date proposed, (which might be the case if the opinions voiced here is the case). It is not fair to the cities putting in proposals.

We should collectively work out our opinion as a committee, and provide that information to proposers. Maybe do a poll of voting committee members for date ranges, and present that information to proposing cities.



On 31/8/17 11:58 pm, Till Adams wrote:
Hi CC,

based on the discussion that already took pace in the past 2 hours, I think we will not find an agreement, that satisfies everybody here. I'd suggest to follow Steven (let the bidding teams suggest their prefered date) and add a comment, that teams should line out, what an alternative date would mean in sight of costs or other circumstances (in Bonn they tourist office simply told me, that they could not block as many accommodations as needed).

So, if a bidding team suggests a date, that lies in "normal" holiday periods (I know, that holidays vary from year to year, in Germany they do it for every state every year), we could please them to briefly line out what an alternative date in, let's say, September would mean.

I'd more prefer, if anybody from CC (except Steven, he is on holidays ;-)) could make comments on my time schedule for the RFP... ;-)

Till





Am <a href="tel:31.08.2017%2015" value="+13108201715" target="_blank" class="">31.08.2017 15:51, schrieb Dirk Frigne:
IMHO was Bonn (2016) during the last week of August. Boston (2017) was
August 15, which is a holiday and in the middle of the holiday season.

my2c.

btw, how many visitors where in Boston?

On 31-08-17 15:17, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
Several members of our community have pointed out that it is an issue
for them to attend, e.g. Jeroen Ticheler pointed this out before. For me
this is the same, I normally can't attend a conference in the school
vacation. Boston wasn't possible. Bonn was barely possible because
schools had just started that week (but some years school vacation will
be until early September even due to regional rotation).

Looking at attendance figures and saying it's no big issue doesn't
really give the right attention to the problem IMHO.

Also even if the venue might be cheaper, I'm sure flights and
accommodation will be expensive in the European holiday season.

Best regards,

Bart


On 31-08-17 15:03, Steven Feldman wrote:
2016 was in august and attracted 940/950 people
2017 was in august and attracted 1140 people
That's record attendance 2 years running (in August)

Doesn't look like August is a big issue for us in the northern
hemisphere.
I also heard from some of the organisers that they were able to obtain
lower rates for venues in August

I think we should leave it to LOCs to propose the dates that work for
them based on regional holiday patterns, pricing, weather and any
other constraints they may have

Now I'm going back to my end of august holiday ;)

Steven


On 31 Aug 2017, at 13:15, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference
dates:
I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or
maybe also
cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also
know,
that there have been some problems for people attending the
conferences in
2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe
we can
also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
conference in August?
I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
northern summer may look appealing to people that go to conferences as
if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
from work, this is a major issue.
_______________________________________________


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Andy Anderson-3
+1 

There are also Muslim holidays that move around the entire calendar; this year Eid al-Adha began on September 1 and continues for several days.


— Andy

On Sep 3, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Steven Feldman <[hidden email]> wrote:

+1 to everything MT has said below re dates

I’d also add that moving to September may well mean a clash with the Jewish High Holy Days which often land in September or early October. No date choice works for everyone!

Let’s live the choice of date open to bidders and ask them to give some explanation of the reason for their choice and the outline  possible options to move to another date/venue at a different cost (if any)
______
Steven


On 3 Sep 2017, at 18:29, Michael Terner <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just one note on dates coming in the wake of Boston where we heard loud, and often about our mid-August time period. And, as has been pointed out, this timing did not deter our ability to attract a record number of delegates:
  1. No time period is good for everyone. Some people are on vacation in August. Other people have significant academic calendar challenges with September. There will always be some people disappointed/frustrated by a given date. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the conference to declare that August vacations are more/less important than other legitimate conflicts with other time periods.
  2. At least in the US, there are significant cost and availability variations between August and September/October. Boston would have been a more expensive conference, with more expensive lodging had it been held in September.
  3. Indeed, while August does mean that some people who are on vacation cannot come, it is likely that it also opened up an ability for others to come who might not have been able to make a September date (hence the good attendance figures from the past 2 August conferences).
From my vantage, it is OK to have a conference that moves around an August - October time period. The specific conference date is chosen by the CC/Board and based on what was proposed. I do not believe it is in the best long term interest of the conference to have iron-clad limits on what might be proposed.

Reading from afar, it looks like very good work, with predictable challenges attempting to be addressed (i.e., cost containment; data selection; etc.). Best of luck in getting the RFP for 2019 on the street. 

MT

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till,

Thanks so much for taking the lead on this. In our do-ocracy your vote counts for much.

Re selecting dates, I agree we have diverse opinions on dates and are not likely to agree, but lets not have our committee members select a conference venue based on date proposed, (which might be the case if the opinions voiced here is the case). It is not fair to the cities putting in proposals.

We should collectively work out our opinion as a committee, and provide that information to proposers. Maybe do a poll of voting committee members for date ranges, and present that information to proposing cities.



On 31/8/17 11:58 pm, Till Adams wrote:
Hi CC,

based on the discussion that already took pace in the past 2 hours, I think we will not find an agreement, that satisfies everybody here. I'd suggest to follow Steven (let the bidding teams suggest their prefered date) and add a comment, that teams should line out, what an alternative date would mean in sight of costs or other circumstances (in Bonn they tourist office simply told me, that they could not block as many accommodations as needed).

So, if a bidding team suggests a date, that lies in "normal" holiday periods (I know, that holidays vary from year to year, in Germany they do it for every state every year), we could please them to briefly line out what an alternative date in, let's say, September would mean.

I'd more prefer, if anybody from CC (except Steven, he is on holidays ;-)) could make comments on my time schedule for the RFP... ;-)

Till





Am <a href="tel:31.08.2017%2015" value="&#43;13108201715" target="_blank" class="">31.08.2017 15:51, schrieb Dirk Frigne:
IMHO was Bonn (2016) during the last week of August. Boston (2017) was
August 15, which is a holiday and in the middle of the holiday season.

my2c.

btw, how many visitors where in Boston?

On 31-08-17 15:17, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
Several members of our community have pointed out that it is an issue
for them to attend, e.g. Jeroen Ticheler pointed this out before. For me
this is the same, I normally can't attend a conference in the school
vacation. Boston wasn't possible. Bonn was barely possible because
schools had just started that week (but some years school vacation will
be until early September even due to regional rotation).

Looking at attendance figures and saying it's no big issue doesn't
really give the right attention to the problem IMHO.

Also even if the venue might be cheaper, I'm sure flights and
accommodation will be expensive in the European holiday season.

Best regards,

Bart


On 31-08-17 15:03, Steven Feldman wrote:
2016 was in august and attracted 940/950 people
2017 was in august and attracted 1140 people
That's record attendance 2 years running (in August)

Doesn't look like August is a big issue for us in the northern
hemisphere.
I also heard from some of the organisers that they were able to obtain
lower rates for venues in August

I think we should leave it to LOCs to propose the dates that work for
them based on regional holiday patterns, pricing, weather and any
other constraints they may have

Now I'm going back to my end of august holiday ;)

Steven


On 31 Aug 2017, at 13:15, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference
dates:
I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or
maybe also
cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also
know,
that there have been some problems for people attending the
conferences in
2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe
we can
also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
conference in August?
I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
northern summer may look appealing to people that go to conferences as
if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
from work, this is a major issue.
_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Board discussion about RFP for FOSS4G-2019

Till Adams-3
In reply to this post by stevenfeldman
+1 - fully agreed. So we wil lhint on our regular time period, but let the bidding teams propose their favoured times.

I just wanted to start a discussion around this and detect the opinions around that.

(Now knowing, that also is an option in the meaning of some members of CC, I feel less guilty because we @Bonn started this August-dates ;-))


Till




Am 03.09.2017 19:59, schrieb Steven Feldman:
+1 to everything MT has said below re dates

I’d also add that moving to September may well mean a clash with the Jewish High Holy Days which often land in September or early October. No date choice works for everyone!

Let’s live the choice of date open to bidders and ask them to give some explanation of the reason for their choice and the outline  possible options to move to another date/venue at a different cost (if any)
______
Steven


On 3 Sep 2017, at 18:29, Michael Terner <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just one note on dates coming in the wake of Boston where we heard loud, and often about our mid-August time period. And, as has been pointed out, this timing did not deter our ability to attract a record number of delegates:
  1. No time period is good for everyone. Some people are on vacation in August. Other people have significant academic calendar challenges with September. There will always be some people disappointed/frustrated by a given date. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the conference to declare that August vacations are more/less important than other legitimate conflicts with other time periods.
  2. At least in the US, there are significant cost and availability variations between August and September/October. Boston would have been a more expensive conference, with more expensive lodging had it been held in September.
  3. Indeed, while August does mean that some people who are on vacation cannot come, it is likely that it also opened up an ability for others to come who might not have been able to make a September date (hence the good attendance figures from the past 2 August conferences).
From my vantage, it is OK to have a conference that moves around an August - October time period. The specific conference date is chosen by the CC/Board and based on what was proposed. I do not believe it is in the best long term interest of the conference to have iron-clad limits on what might be proposed.

Reading from afar, it looks like very good work, with predictable challenges attempting to be addressed (i.e., cost containment; data selection; etc.). Best of luck in getting the RFP for 2019 on the street. 

MT

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Till,

Thanks so much for taking the lead on this. In our do-ocracy your vote counts for much.

Re selecting dates, I agree we have diverse opinions on dates and are not likely to agree, but lets not have our committee members select a conference venue based on date proposed, (which might be the case if the opinions voiced here is the case). It is not fair to the cities putting in proposals.

We should collectively work out our opinion as a committee, and provide that information to proposers. Maybe do a poll of voting committee members for date ranges, and present that information to proposing cities.



On 31/8/17 11:58 pm, Till Adams wrote:
Hi CC,

based on the discussion that already took pace in the past 2 hours, I think we will not find an agreement, that satisfies everybody here. I'd suggest to follow Steven (let the bidding teams suggest their prefered date) and add a comment, that teams should line out, what an alternative date would mean in sight of costs or other circumstances (in Bonn they tourist office simply told me, that they could not block as many accommodations as needed).

So, if a bidding team suggests a date, that lies in "normal" holiday periods (I know, that holidays vary from year to year, in Germany they do it for every state every year), we could please them to briefly line out what an alternative date in, let's say, September would mean.

I'd more prefer, if anybody from CC (except Steven, he is on holidays ;-)) could make comments on my time schedule for the RFP... ;-)

Till





Am <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:31.08.2017%2015" value="+13108201715" target="_blank" class="">31.08.2017 15:51, schrieb Dirk Frigne:
IMHO was Bonn (2016) during the last week of August. Boston (2017) was
August 15, which is a holiday and in the middle of the holiday season.

my2c.

btw, how many visitors where in Boston?

On 31-08-17 15:17, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
Several members of our community have pointed out that it is an issue
for them to attend, e.g. Jeroen Ticheler pointed this out before. For me
this is the same, I normally can't attend a conference in the school
vacation. Boston wasn't possible. Bonn was barely possible because
schools had just started that week (but some years school vacation will
be until early September even due to regional rotation).

Looking at attendance figures and saying it's no big issue doesn't
really give the right attention to the problem IMHO.

Also even if the venue might be cheaper, I'm sure flights and
accommodation will be expensive in the European holiday season.

Best regards,

Bart


On 31-08-17 15:03, Steven Feldman wrote:
2016 was in august and attracted 940/950 people
2017 was in august and attracted 1140 people
That's record attendance 2 years running (in August)

Doesn't look like August is a big issue for us in the northern
hemisphere.
I also heard from some of the organisers that they were able to obtain
lower rates for venues in August

I think we should leave it to LOCs to propose the dates that work for
them based on regional holiday patterns, pricing, weather and any
other constraints they may have

Now I'm going back to my end of august holiday ;)

Steven


On 31 Aug 2017, at 13:15, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:

Also I can imagine of editing the section regarding the conference
dates:
I think we just have s.t.h like a target timeperiod (Sept-Oct), but we
should hint bidding teams, that they may choose the best and/or
maybe also
cheaper period around this target period. On the other hand, I also
know,
that there have been some problems for people attending the
conferences in
2016 and 2017 that took place in holiday-pregnant August, so maybe
we can
also have a discussion whether we can/will allow people to have their
conference in August?
I think this is very important. Having the conference during the
northern summer may look appealing to people that go to conferences as
if they were holidays. But for people that need to take care of their
family or people that just want to enjoy their holidays disconnecting
from work, this is a major issue.
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoI votes"

Till Adams-3
Hi CC,

as nobody changed the time schedule, I regard this now as accepted.
Please plan some time for reviews of LoI and Proposals:

Stage 1 question period: 2017 September 30 to 2017 October 13
Stage 2 question period: 2017 November 28 to 2017 December 12

I will prepare the final document by tomorrow and publish it to you for
discussion. Due to the timetable we'll have to publish it 8th of
september (which is next friday).


Call for vote:
I would propose *not* to publish the number of votes on LoI's as we did
(presumably accidentally) for the 2018 RfP - I remember that the number
of votes pro Dar was at least one of the reasons for Bangkok to withdraw.
I suggest to vote on this.
Please vote on this until 8th of September (24h CET ;-))

One following up question:
The voting was performed by nominating one "vote collector" - right?
Does anybody has a person in mind?

Till
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Start 2019 RFP / Call for vote on "publishing LoI votes"

Venkatesh Raghavan-2
On 9/4/2017 3:45 PM, Till Adams wrote:
...
> Call for vote:
> I would propose *not* to publish the number of votes on LoI's as we did
> (presumably accidentally) for the 2018 RfP - I remember that the number
> of votes pro Dar was at least one of the reasons for Bangkok to withdraw.
> I suggest to vote on this.
> Please vote on this until 8th of September (24h CET ;-))

+1 for *not* publishing the number of votes
at any stage during or after the selection.

Venka

>
> One following up question:
> The voting was performed by nominating one "vote collector" - right?
> Does anybody has a person in mind?
>
> Till
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
123