OS conference platform

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

OS conference platform

Gavin Fleming-4
Hi all

The topic of consistent conference infrastructure came up again at Bucharest, with the emphasis on giving conference teams maximum space to focus on the conference rather than selecting and building new back-ends each time. I’ve recently experienced ‘Open Source Event Manager’ [1] through my interaction with the Postgresconf coming up in Johannesburg [2]. It was a pleasant and slick experience and seems to do most of what a FOSS4G would need.

If we like it (or something else) we could specify it for 2021 (along with Attendify which seems to be and accepted component now)

Gavin

[1] https://github.com/PostgresConf/pgem, which is a fork of https://github.com/openSUSE/osem
[2] https://postgresconf.org/


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Fleming - Joint MD - PrGISc [PGP1234]
Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
* Desktop GIS programming services
* Geospatial web development
* GIS Training
* Consulting Services
Skype: phlemingo
Office: +27(0)878092702
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Re: OS conference platform

delawen
Hi,

Good to start this already!

For those of you who were not on the codesprint: the talk about
deploying an open source stack for conference management software in
OSGeo was to have a tool not only for the international event but also
for local and regional events. If I'm not mistaken, the stack
suggested was the same used in FOSSGIS (?) and has ticketing system,
program planning and mobile app:
https://pretix.eu/about/en/

I wasn't the full conversation so maybe there were more options discussed there.

In my opinion, we should get rid of Attendify ASAP. For a start, it is
not GDPR compliant (!!!!!), it has a strong vendor lock-in and, what
is worse, costs a lot of money every year (compared with open source
options) :-/ Let's apply what we always say of using "licensing" money
to extend and own the open source software :)

At the same time, we could suggest options but we shouldn't force any
decision over the LOCs because maybe in some countries the software
stack chosen is not available/feasible/useful/possible for who knows
what reason. Thinking for example on blocked countries of the origin
company.

Cross-posting to the local-chapters mailing list, where I think the
conversation was going to take place once people arrive at home. So in
case someone is there, conversation just started! Also there was
movement to start some shared knowledge between regional chapters
about how to build community and organize events. But maybe that
should continue only on the local-chapters mailing list?

Thanks for bringing this up!
María.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:59 PM Gavin Fleming <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi all
>
> The topic of consistent conference infrastructure came up again at Bucharest, with the emphasis on giving conference teams maximum space to focus on the conference rather than selecting and building new back-ends each time. I’ve recently experienced ‘Open Source Event Manager’ [1] through my interaction with the Postgresconf coming up in Johannesburg [2]. It was a pleasant and slick experience and seems to do most of what a FOSS4G would need.
>
> If we like it (or something else) we could specify it for 2021 (along with Attendify which seems to be and accepted component now)
>
> Gavin
>
> [1] https://github.com/PostgresConf/pgem, which is a fork of https://github.com/openSUSE/osem
> [2] https://postgresconf.org/
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gavin Fleming - Joint MD - PrGISc [PGP1234]
> Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
> * Desktop GIS programming services
> * Geospatial web development
> * GIS Training
> * Consulting Services
> Skype: phlemingo
> Office: +27(0)878092702
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: OS conference platform

michael terner-2
I am all for having a standard set of tools that are available to FOSS4G teams whether the conferences are at the Global, National or Regional levels.

That said, I firmly agree with Maria's statement that "we shouldn't force any decision over the LOCs." For example, in the Boston Conference, the Registration system and the Abstract submission/scoring system was provided by our Professional Conference Organizer at a very reasonable cost and part of the complete "package" they offered us. This saved our volunteers time and focus and it worked very well (e.g., our PCO also acted as our "bank" and the registration system they used easily integrated with their banking).

I would also observe that "open source options" aren't necessarily always the lowest cost, if you look at them through the lens of "total cost of ownership." For example, the Bucharest team used the open source Pretalx system for Abstract submittal/scoring, and Volker Mische provided non-trivial (and amazing) assistance in making Pretalx work for the Program Committee (which I participated in). I also believe that Bucharest actually funded some needed enhancements to Pretalx. Thus, before declaring that Attendify needs to be "gotten rid of" partly because it "costs a lot of money every year (compared with open source options)." Is there really an open source option that is as good and easy to administer as Attendify? The mobile app is mission critical and Attendify has now proven itself as effective across 3 successive FOSS4G's? Also, Attendify - at least for Boston - was extremely cost effective and we spent only around $1,000 (I don't know what the current cost for Bucharest was?). My point is that finding a volunteer to figure out and successfully deploy (and extend?) an open source solution could easily lead to a total cost of ownership that is higher for using an open source solution (if you value the time that volunteers would need to invest in making it work). Of course, the GDPR issue is different and very important and needs to be resolved. I would hope that Attendify is working on it. As per above, this should be an LOC choice and if there is a good open source solution, and a team ready to deploy it, then more power to that team.

Thanks again to the whole Bucharest team for another amazing and useful FOSS4G experience in 2019!!!

MT




On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 12:15 PM María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Good to start this already!

For those of you who were not on the codesprint: the talk about
deploying an open source stack for conference management software in
OSGeo was to have a tool not only for the international event but also
for local and regional events. If I'm not mistaken, the stack
suggested was the same used in FOSSGIS (?) and has ticketing system,
program planning and mobile app:
https://pretix.eu/about/en/

I wasn't the full conversation so maybe there were more options discussed there.

In my opinion, we should get rid of Attendify ASAP. For a start, it is
not GDPR compliant (!!!!!), it has a strong vendor lock-in and, what
is worse, costs a lot of money every year (compared with open source
options) :-/ Let's apply what we always say of using "licensing" money
to extend and own the open source software :)

At the same time, we could suggest options but we shouldn't force any
decision over the LOCs because maybe in some countries the software
stack chosen is not available/feasible/useful/possible for who knows
what reason. Thinking for example on blocked countries of the origin
company.

Cross-posting to the local-chapters mailing list, where I think the
conversation was going to take place once people arrive at home. So in
case someone is there, conversation just started! Also there was
movement to start some shared knowledge between regional chapters
about how to build community and organize events. But maybe that
should continue only on the local-chapters mailing list?

Thanks for bringing this up!
María.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:59 PM Gavin Fleming <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> The topic of consistent conference infrastructure came up again at Bucharest, with the emphasis on giving conference teams maximum space to focus on the conference rather than selecting and building new back-ends each time. I’ve recently experienced ‘Open Source Event Manager’ [1] through my interaction with the Postgresconf coming up in Johannesburg [2]. It was a pleasant and slick experience and seems to do most of what a FOSS4G would need.
>
> If we like it (or something else) we could specify it for 2021 (along with Attendify which seems to be and accepted component now)
>
> Gavin
>
> [1] https://github.com/PostgresConf/pgem, which is a fork of https://github.com/openSUSE/osem
> [2] https://postgresconf.org/
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gavin Fleming - Joint MD - PrGISc [PGP1234]
> Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
> * Desktop GIS programming services
> * Geospatial web development
> * GIS Training
> * Consulting Services
> Skype: phlemingo
> Office: +27(0)878092702
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


--
Michael Terner
(M) 978-631-6602

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

Re: OS conference platform

Volker Mische
Hi all,

On 2019-09-03 02:00, michael terner wrote:
> I am all for having a standard set of tools that are available to FOSS4G
> teams whether the conferences are at the Global, National or Regional
> levels.

+1


> That said, I firmly agree with Maria's statement that "we shouldn't
> force any decision over the LOCs." For example, in the Boston
> Conference, the Registration system and the Abstract submission/scoring
> system was /provided by /our Professional Conference Organizer at a very
> reasonable cost and part of the complete "package" they offered us. This
> saved our volunteers time and focus and it worked very well (e.g., our
> PCO also acted as our "bank" and the registration system they used
> easily integrated with their banking).

+1


> I would also observe that "open source options" aren't necessarily
> /always/ the lowest cost, if you look at them through the lens of "total
> cost of ownership." [...]

I'm in agreement with Michael here. For me using pretalx is not about
reducing costs it's about spending money in a different way.

> Is there really an open source option that is as good
> and easy to administer as Attendify? The mobile app is mission critical
> and Attendify has now proven itself as effective across 3 successive
> FOSS4G's? Also, Attendify - at least for Boston - was extremely cost
> effective and we spent only around $1,000 (I don't know what the current
> cost for Bucharest was?). My point is that finding a volunteer to figure
> out and successfully deploy (and extend?) an open source solution could
> easily lead to a total cost of ownership that is higher for using an
> open source solution (if you value the time that volunteers would need
> to invest in making it work). Of course, the GDPR issue is different and
> very important and needs to be resolved. I would hope that Attendify is
> working on it. As per above, this should be an LOC choice and if there
> is a good open source solution, and a team ready to deploy it, then more
> power to that team.

For the Bucharest LOC it was a good solution given the limited time (in
the last week before the conference) they had to pull such a system of
(that's a long story and wouldn't contribute any meaningful to this
conversation). I've spoken with Codrina (the chair of the program
committee) and she would not recommend it if you have the time to use
another system. It wasn't straight forward to get all the information
they needed into Attendify. Several scripts where needed to get the data
from pretalx (the source of truth) into Attendify (the scripts can be
published for the next team).

If you use categories in Attendify, you won't have a way to see all the
scheduled things at once. This can lead to people missing talks. Hence
the Bucharest team was putting everything into one category (even the
coffee breaks). This means that we didn't use Attendify the way it was
supposed to be.

The costs for Attendify were around $1000 USD.

Hence I'd like to stress that Attendify may be used (perhaps even for
2020) but we should definitely look for better solutions in the long run.

Cheers,
  Volker


> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 12:15 PM María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Good to start this already!
>
>     For those of you who were not on the codesprint: the talk about
>     deploying an open source stack for conference management software in
>     OSGeo was to have a tool not only for the international event but also
>     for local and regional events. If I'm not mistaken, the stack
>     suggested was the same used in FOSSGIS (?) and has ticketing system,
>     program planning and mobile app:
>     https://pretix.eu/about/en/
>
>     I wasn't the full conversation so maybe there were more options
>     discussed there.
>
>     In my opinion, we should get rid of Attendify ASAP. For a start, it is
>     not GDPR compliant (!!!!!), it has a strong vendor lock-in and, what
>     is worse, costs a lot of money every year (compared with open source
>     options) :-/ Let's apply what we always say of using "licensing" money
>     to extend and own the open source software :)
>
>     At the same time, we could suggest options but we shouldn't force any
>     decision over the LOCs because maybe in some countries the software
>     stack chosen is not available/feasible/useful/possible for who knows
>     what reason. Thinking for example on blocked countries of the origin
>     company.
>
>     Cross-posting to the local-chapters mailing list, where I think the
>     conversation was going to take place once people arrive at home. So in
>     case someone is there, conversation just started! Also there was
>     movement to start some shared knowledge between regional chapters
>     about how to build community and organize events. But maybe that
>     should continue only on the local-chapters mailing list?
>
>     Thanks for bringing this up!
>     María.
>
>     On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:59 PM Gavin Fleming <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi all
>     >
>     > The topic of consistent conference infrastructure came up again at
>     Bucharest, with the emphasis on giving conference teams maximum
>     space to focus on the conference rather than selecting and building
>     new back-ends each time. I’ve recently experienced ‘Open Source
>     Event Manager’ [1] through my interaction with the Postgresconf
>     coming up in Johannesburg [2]. It was a pleasant and slick
>     experience and seems to do most of what a FOSS4G would need.
>     >
>     > If we like it (or something else) we could specify it for 2021
>     (along with Attendify which seems to be and accepted component now)
>     >
>     > Gavin
>     >
>     > [1] https://github.com/PostgresConf/pgem, which is a fork of
>     https://github.com/openSUSE/osem
>     > [2] https://postgresconf.org/
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > Gavin Fleming - Joint MD - PrGISc [PGP1234]
>     > Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
>     > * Desktop GIS programming services
>     > * Geospatial web development
>     > * GIS Training
>     > * Consulting Services
>     > Skype: phlemingo
>     > Office: +27(0)878092702
>     >
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Conference_dev mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     _______________________________________________
>     Conference_dev mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Terner
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> (M) 978-631-6602
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: OS conference platform

delawen
Thanks. That's what I tried to say. Bad phrasing on "cheap", I meant using the money for extending it and making it our own.

El lun., 2 sept. 2019 20:42, Volker Mische <[hidden email]> escribió:
Hi all,

On 2019-09-03 02:00, michael terner wrote:
> I am all for having a standard set of tools that are available to FOSS4G
> teams whether the conferences are at the Global, National or Regional
> levels.

+1


> That said, I firmly agree with Maria's statement that "we shouldn't
> force any decision over the LOCs." For example, in the Boston
> Conference, the Registration system and the Abstract submission/scoring
> system was /provided by /our Professional Conference Organizer at a very
> reasonable cost and part of the complete "package" they offered us. This
> saved our volunteers time and focus and it worked very well (e.g., our
> PCO also acted as our "bank" and the registration system they used
> easily integrated with their banking).

+1


> I would also observe that "open source options" aren't necessarily
> /always/ the lowest cost, if you look at them through the lens of "total
> cost of ownership." [...]

I'm in agreement with Michael here. For me using pretalx is not about
reducing costs it's about spending money in a different way.

> Is there really an open source option that is as good
> and easy to administer as Attendify? The mobile app is mission critical
> and Attendify has now proven itself as effective across 3 successive
> FOSS4G's? Also, Attendify - at least for Boston - was extremely cost
> effective and we spent only around $1,000 (I don't know what the current
> cost for Bucharest was?). My point is that finding a volunteer to figure
> out and successfully deploy (and extend?) an open source solution could
> easily lead to a total cost of ownership that is higher for using an
> open source solution (if you value the time that volunteers would need
> to invest in making it work). Of course, the GDPR issue is different and
> very important and needs to be resolved. I would hope that Attendify is
> working on it. As per above, this should be an LOC choice and if there
> is a good open source solution, and a team ready to deploy it, then more
> power to that team.

For the Bucharest LOC it was a good solution given the limited time (in
the last week before the conference) they had to pull such a system of
(that's a long story and wouldn't contribute any meaningful to this
conversation). I've spoken with Codrina (the chair of the program
committee) and she would not recommend it if you have the time to use
another system. It wasn't straight forward to get all the information
they needed into Attendify. Several scripts where needed to get the data
from pretalx (the source of truth) into Attendify (the scripts can be
published for the next team).

If you use categories in Attendify, you won't have a way to see all the
scheduled things at once. This can lead to people missing talks. Hence
the Bucharest team was putting everything into one category (even the
coffee breaks). This means that we didn't use Attendify the way it was
supposed to be.

The costs for Attendify were around $1000 USD.

Hence I'd like to stress that Attendify may be used (perhaps even for
2020) but we should definitely look for better solutions in the long run.

Cheers,
  Volker


> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 12:15 PM María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Good to start this already!
>
>     For those of you who were not on the codesprint: the talk about
>     deploying an open source stack for conference management software in
>     OSGeo was to have a tool not only for the international event but also
>     for local and regional events. If I'm not mistaken, the stack
>     suggested was the same used in FOSSGIS (?) and has ticketing system,
>     program planning and mobile app:
>     https://pretix.eu/about/en/
>
>     I wasn't the full conversation so maybe there were more options
>     discussed there.
>
>     In my opinion, we should get rid of Attendify ASAP. For a start, it is
>     not GDPR compliant (!!!!!), it has a strong vendor lock-in and, what
>     is worse, costs a lot of money every year (compared with open source
>     options) :-/ Let's apply what we always say of using "licensing" money
>     to extend and own the open source software :)
>
>     At the same time, we could suggest options but we shouldn't force any
>     decision over the LOCs because maybe in some countries the software
>     stack chosen is not available/feasible/useful/possible for who knows
>     what reason. Thinking for example on blocked countries of the origin
>     company.
>
>     Cross-posting to the local-chapters mailing list, where I think the
>     conversation was going to take place once people arrive at home. So in
>     case someone is there, conversation just started! Also there was
>     movement to start some shared knowledge between regional chapters
>     about how to build community and organize events. But maybe that
>     should continue only on the local-chapters mailing list?
>
>     Thanks for bringing this up!
>     María.
>
>     On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:59 PM Gavin Fleming <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi all
>     >
>     > The topic of consistent conference infrastructure came up again at
>     Bucharest, with the emphasis on giving conference teams maximum
>     space to focus on the conference rather than selecting and building
>     new back-ends each time. I’ve recently experienced ‘Open Source
>     Event Manager’ [1] through my interaction with the Postgresconf
>     coming up in Johannesburg [2]. It was a pleasant and slick
>     experience and seems to do most of what a FOSS4G would need.
>     >
>     > If we like it (or something else) we could specify it for 2021
>     (along with Attendify which seems to be and accepted component now)
>     >
>     > Gavin
>     >
>     > [1] https://github.com/PostgresConf/pgem, which is a fork of
>     https://github.com/openSUSE/osem
>     > [2] https://postgresconf.org/
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > Gavin Fleming - Joint MD - PrGISc [PGP1234]
>     > Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
>     > * Desktop GIS programming services
>     > * Geospatial web development
>     > * GIS Training
>     > * Consulting Services
>     > Skype: phlemingo
>     > Office: +27(0)878092702
>     >
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Conference_dev mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     _______________________________________________
>     Conference_dev mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Terner
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> (M) 978-631-6602
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: OS conference platform

John Bryant
At the code sprint, Volker showed me a mobile schedule app that integrates nicely with Pretalx. Seems like it would have potential for FOSS4G SotM Oceania, since we already use Pretalx. If there were an OSGeo instance of Pretalx (hosted by Pretalx or otherwise) we would probably benefit from using it locally, and might be in a position to help with development efforts.

Whether we actually use it would depend on whichever team is actually organising our conference next year, but from my perspective it seems like a win for local/regional events.


On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 20:47, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks. That's what I tried to say. Bad phrasing on "cheap", I meant using the money for extending it and making it our own.

El lun., 2 sept. 2019 20:42, Volker Mische <[hidden email]> escribió:
Hi all,

On 2019-09-03 02:00, michael terner wrote:
> I am all for having a standard set of tools that are available to FOSS4G
> teams whether the conferences are at the Global, National or Regional
> levels.

+1


> That said, I firmly agree with Maria's statement that "we shouldn't
> force any decision over the LOCs." For example, in the Boston
> Conference, the Registration system and the Abstract submission/scoring
> system was /provided by /our Professional Conference Organizer at a very
> reasonable cost and part of the complete "package" they offered us. This
> saved our volunteers time and focus and it worked very well (e.g., our
> PCO also acted as our "bank" and the registration system they used
> easily integrated with their banking).

+1


> I would also observe that "open source options" aren't necessarily
> /always/ the lowest cost, if you look at them through the lens of "total
> cost of ownership." [...]

I'm in agreement with Michael here. For me using pretalx is not about
reducing costs it's about spending money in a different way.

> Is there really an open source option that is as good
> and easy to administer as Attendify? The mobile app is mission critical
> and Attendify has now proven itself as effective across 3 successive
> FOSS4G's? Also, Attendify - at least for Boston - was extremely cost
> effective and we spent only around $1,000 (I don't know what the current
> cost for Bucharest was?). My point is that finding a volunteer to figure
> out and successfully deploy (and extend?) an open source solution could
> easily lead to a total cost of ownership that is higher for using an
> open source solution (if you value the time that volunteers would need
> to invest in making it work). Of course, the GDPR issue is different and
> very important and needs to be resolved. I would hope that Attendify is
> working on it. As per above, this should be an LOC choice and if there
> is a good open source solution, and a team ready to deploy it, then more
> power to that team.

For the Bucharest LOC it was a good solution given the limited time (in
the last week before the conference) they had to pull such a system of
(that's a long story and wouldn't contribute any meaningful to this
conversation). I've spoken with Codrina (the chair of the program
committee) and she would not recommend it if you have the time to use
another system. It wasn't straight forward to get all the information
they needed into Attendify. Several scripts where needed to get the data
from pretalx (the source of truth) into Attendify (the scripts can be
published for the next team).

If you use categories in Attendify, you won't have a way to see all the
scheduled things at once. This can lead to people missing talks. Hence
the Bucharest team was putting everything into one category (even the
coffee breaks). This means that we didn't use Attendify the way it was
supposed to be.

The costs for Attendify were around $1000 USD.

Hence I'd like to stress that Attendify may be used (perhaps even for
2020) but we should definitely look for better solutions in the long run.

Cheers,
  Volker


> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 12:15 PM María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Good to start this already!
>
>     For those of you who were not on the codesprint: the talk about
>     deploying an open source stack for conference management software in
>     OSGeo was to have a tool not only for the international event but also
>     for local and regional events. If I'm not mistaken, the stack
>     suggested was the same used in FOSSGIS (?) and has ticketing system,
>     program planning and mobile app:
>     https://pretix.eu/about/en/
>
>     I wasn't the full conversation so maybe there were more options
>     discussed there.
>
>     In my opinion, we should get rid of Attendify ASAP. For a start, it is
>     not GDPR compliant (!!!!!), it has a strong vendor lock-in and, what
>     is worse, costs a lot of money every year (compared with open source
>     options) :-/ Let's apply what we always say of using "licensing" money
>     to extend and own the open source software :)
>
>     At the same time, we could suggest options but we shouldn't force any
>     decision over the LOCs because maybe in some countries the software
>     stack chosen is not available/feasible/useful/possible for who knows
>     what reason. Thinking for example on blocked countries of the origin
>     company.
>
>     Cross-posting to the local-chapters mailing list, where I think the
>     conversation was going to take place once people arrive at home. So in
>     case someone is there, conversation just started! Also there was
>     movement to start some shared knowledge between regional chapters
>     about how to build community and organize events. But maybe that
>     should continue only on the local-chapters mailing list?
>
>     Thanks for bringing this up!
>     María.
>
>     On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:59 PM Gavin Fleming <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi all
>     >
>     > The topic of consistent conference infrastructure came up again at
>     Bucharest, with the emphasis on giving conference teams maximum
>     space to focus on the conference rather than selecting and building
>     new back-ends each time. I’ve recently experienced ‘Open Source
>     Event Manager’ [1] through my interaction with the Postgresconf
>     coming up in Johannesburg [2]. It was a pleasant and slick
>     experience and seems to do most of what a FOSS4G would need.
>     >
>     > If we like it (or something else) we could specify it for 2021
>     (along with Attendify which seems to be and accepted component now)
>     >
>     > Gavin
>     >
>     > [1] https://github.com/PostgresConf/pgem, which is a fork of
>     https://github.com/openSUSE/osem
>     > [2] https://postgresconf.org/
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > Gavin Fleming - Joint MD - PrGISc [PGP1234]
>     > Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
>     > * Desktop GIS programming services
>     > * Geospatial web development
>     > * GIS Training
>     > * Consulting Services
>     > Skype: phlemingo
>     > Office: +27(0)878092702
>     >
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Conference_dev mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>     _______________________________________________
>     Conference_dev mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Terner
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> (M) 978-631-6602
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: OS conference platform

Paul Ramsey
In reply to this post by michael terner-2

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 10:01 AM michael terner <[hidden email]> wrote:

That said, I firmly agree with Maria's statement that "we shouldn't force any decision over the LOCs." For example, in the Boston Conference, the Registration system and the Abstract submission/scoring system was provided by our Professional Conference Organizer at a very reasonable cost and part of the complete "package" they offered us. This saved our volunteers time and focus and it worked very well (e.g., our PCO also acted as our "bank" and the registration system they used easily integrated with their banking).

We (2020) are currently at the pointy end of this discussion. The marketing and web folks in the LOC aren't particularly technical, so any out-of-the-usual solutions would have to be maintained for them, and they'd have to be supported on them. Right now, just getting a clean DNS/web setup is complicated, because normal people don't actually understand the difference between A records and CNAME records and what an HTTP 304 response is. I personally am avoiding over-committing, so any push to bring particular technology to bear has to also come with associated support to the LOC. "Doocracy" as Cameron says. Like, maybe for my personal use I a static web site generator and publish through 'git push' (I do), but that's not something I can direct other people to do. I am particularly loath to say "use this just-add-a-smart-person solution" when there are "just-add-money" solutions lying around, and ones they are familiar with, at that.

 As per above, this should be an LOC choice and if there is a good open source solution, and a team ready to deploy it, then more power to that team.

A much more succinct way of saying what I said.
 
Thanks again to the whole Bucharest team for another amazing and useful FOSS4G experience in 2019!!!

A thousand curses on Bucharest for raising the bar so high.

ATB,

P

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

Re: OS conference platform

Paul Ramsey
Just to close off this thread:

2020 have decided to use the hosted version of pretalx, so we are
having our cake and eating it too, in using an open source code base,
but avoiding the complexities of self-hosting. The pretalx folks have
been very accommodating to use, so with luck this arrangement can
continue on into the future.

P.

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:02 AM Paul Ramsey <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 10:01 AM michael terner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That said, I firmly agree with Maria's statement that "we shouldn't force any decision over the LOCs." For example, in the Boston Conference, the Registration system and the Abstract submission/scoring system was provided by our Professional Conference Organizer at a very reasonable cost and part of the complete "package" they offered us. This saved our volunteers time and focus and it worked very well (e.g., our PCO also acted as our "bank" and the registration system they used easily integrated with their banking).
>
>
> We (2020) are currently at the pointy end of this discussion. The marketing and web folks in the LOC aren't particularly technical, so any out-of-the-usual solutions would have to be maintained for them, and they'd have to be supported on them. Right now, just getting a clean DNS/web setup is complicated, because normal people don't actually understand the difference between A records and CNAME records and what an HTTP 304 response is. I personally am avoiding over-committing, so any push to bring particular technology to bear has to also come with associated support to the LOC. "Doocracy" as Cameron says. Like, maybe for my personal use I a static web site generator and publish through 'git push' (I do), but that's not something I can direct other people to do. I am particularly loath to say "use this just-add-a-smart-person solution" when there are "just-add-money" solutions lying around, and ones they are familiar with, at that.
>
>>  As per above, this should be an LOC choice and if there is a good open source solution, and a team ready to deploy it, then more power to that team.
>
>
> A much more succinct way of saying what I said.
>
>>
>> Thanks again to the whole Bucharest team for another amazing and useful FOSS4G experience in 2019!!!
>
>
> A thousand curses on Bucharest for raising the bar so high.
>
> ATB,
>
> P
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OS conference platform

Alex Leith
We used Pretalx for FOSS4G SotM Oceania, so hit us up with any questions that might arise.

We integrated it in with our website for the program too. 

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 09:14, Paul Ramsey <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just to close off this thread:

2020 have decided to use the hosted version of pretalx, so we are
having our cake and eating it too, in using an open source code base,
but avoiding the complexities of self-hosting. The pretalx folks have
been very accommodating to use, so with luck this arrangement can
continue on into the future.

P.

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:02 AM Paul Ramsey <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 10:01 AM michael terner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That said, I firmly agree with Maria's statement that "we shouldn't force any decision over the LOCs." For example, in the Boston Conference, the Registration system and the Abstract submission/scoring system was provided by our Professional Conference Organizer at a very reasonable cost and part of the complete "package" they offered us. This saved our volunteers time and focus and it worked very well (e.g., our PCO also acted as our "bank" and the registration system they used easily integrated with their banking).
>
>
> We (2020) are currently at the pointy end of this discussion. The marketing and web folks in the LOC aren't particularly technical, so any out-of-the-usual solutions would have to be maintained for them, and they'd have to be supported on them. Right now, just getting a clean DNS/web setup is complicated, because normal people don't actually understand the difference between A records and CNAME records and what an HTTP 304 response is. I personally am avoiding over-committing, so any push to bring particular technology to bear has to also come with associated support to the LOC. "Doocracy" as Cameron says. Like, maybe for my personal use I a static web site generator and publish through 'git push' (I do), but that's not something I can direct other people to do. I am particularly loath to say "use this just-add-a-smart-person solution" when there are "just-add-money" solutions lying around, and ones they are familiar with, at that.
>
>>  As per above, this should be an LOC choice and if there is a good open source solution, and a team ready to deploy it, then more power to that team.
>
>
> A much more succinct way of saying what I said.
>
>>
>> Thanks again to the whole Bucharest team for another amazing and useful FOSS4G experience in 2019!!!
>
>
> A thousand curses on Bucharest for raising the bar so high.
>
> ATB,
>
> P
_______________________________________________
Conference_dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev


--
Alex Leith
m: 0419189050

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